Wygle v. Commissioner of Social Security
3:18-cv-03049
N.D. IowaFeb 27, 2020Background
- Victoria K. Wygle applied for SSI (filed 2014/2015), alleging disability from fibromyalgia and osteoarthritis; she was incarcerated at the time of the 2017 hearing.
- ALJ Souza denied benefits, finding severe impairments of fibromyalgia, depression, and anxiety, and assessed an RFC for light work with a sit/stand option and multiple environmental restrictions.
- The administrative record included a 2015 Unity Point treatment note prescribing a walker for "medical/safety necessity," but the ALJ appears not to have considered that prescription in weighing the evidence.
- The VE identified jobs (cashier II, counter clerk, housekeeper) compatible with the ALJ’s hypothetical, but testified that a sit/stand option might depend on employer practices and was outside the DOT.
- The Appeals Council denied review and declined to consider later medical records; Wygle raised additional arguments in district court, including that the ALJ failed to fully develop the record and that the ALJ was unconstitutionally appointed under Lucia.
- The magistrate judge recommended remand: order a consultative exam about assistive-device needs, reweigh medical opinions (including state-agency reviewers), craft a new RFC including the walker prescription, and obtain clarifying VE testimony about sit/stand accommodations (or award benefits if claimant is limited to sedentary work). The Lucia challenge was found waived but may be reasserted on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Wygle's Argument | Saul's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ fully and fairly developed the record re: physical RFC (need for consultative exam) | ALJ should have obtained a treating/examining medical opinion about physical limits and whether psychological factors worsen pain; walker prescription shows greater limitation | ALJ not required to obtain more evidence when record permits an RFC; claimant bears burden to produce evidence | Remand required: record mixed, ALJ overlooked walker prescription and misread state-agency opinions; court orders consultative exam and reweighing of opinions |
| Whether ALJ's RFC is supported by substantial medical evidence | RFC understates limitations (standing/walking), and ALJ relied on prison ambulation where walker/prior shoes were unavailable | ALJ permissibly discounted testimony and credited state-agency opinions; lack of specialist/tender-point testing and negative ANA weigh against fibromyalgia severity | ALJ’s RFC not supported by substantial evidence as recorded; remand to reassess RFC after medical exam and opinion reweighting |
| Whether VE testimony supports a finding of jobs existing in significant numbers given sit/stand option | VE’s equivocal testimony (sit/stand may be employer-dependent or an accommodation) fails to show such accommodations are prevalent, so step five not satisfied | VE said identified occupations "could allow" sit/stand; ALJ may consider whether accommodations are commonly available (Higgins) | Remand required for clarifying VE testimony about whether sit/stand options are common for the identified jobs or for new VE testimony based on new RFC |
| Whether Wygle preserved an Appointments Clause (Lucia) challenge to ALJ’s authority | Lucia requires vacatur/remand because SSA ALJs are inferior officers; challenge can be raised now | Plaintiff waived Lucia claim by not raising it before the ALJ or Appeals Council; procedural rules require timeliness | Court holds Lucia challenge waived for purposes of this appeal but permits Wygle to renew the objection on remand (nonjurisdictional structural objection) |
Key Cases Cited
- Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148 (2019) (defines "substantial evidence" standard)
- Hensley v. Colvin, 829 F.3d 926 (8th Cir. 2016) (RFC must be supported by some medical evidence of ability to function at work)
- Higgins v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 898 F.3d 793 (8th Cir. 2018) (ALJ may consider whether workplace accommodations have become prevalent)
- Eback v. Chater, 94 F.3d 410 (8th Cir. 1996) (step-five inquiry must be based on broad vocational patterns, not isolated employer practices)
- Lucia v. SEC, 138 S. Ct. 2044 (2018) (Appointments Clause holding for SEC ALJs; timeliness of challenge is required)
- Naber v. Shalala, 22 F.3d 186 (8th Cir. 1994) (ALJ may decide without further medical evidence if the record provides sufficient basis)
- Moore v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 520 (8th Cir. 2009) (burden of proof at steps one–four on claimant; at step five on Commissioner)