09-3991-cv Genier v. Astrue

1 Office of the General Counsel, Social Security 2 Administration, on the brief), for Andrew T. Baxter, 3 Acting United States Attorney, Northern District of 4 New York, Syracuse, New York, for Appellee.

5 PER CURIAM. 6 Plaintiff Craig Genier, an applicant for disability benefits under the Social Security Act, 7 42 U.S.C. § 401 et seq. (“the Act”), appeals from the judgment of the United States District

*

8 Court for the Northern District of New York (Peebles, M.J.), which affirmed the agency’s denial

9 of benefits. Genier argues that the administrative law judge who rendered the decision of the 10 Commissioner erred by failing to consider all of the relevant evidence. We agree. We 11 accordingly vacate the judgment of the district court and remand the case for further proceedings. 12 BACKGROUND 13 Genier filed an application for Supplemental Security Income and Disability Insurance 14 Benefits under the Act on April 4, 2006. He alleged that he had been unable to work since 15 August 13, 2005, due to his morbid obesity and related ailments, including, at various times, 16 severe sleep apnea, back pain, and knee pain. The Commissioner denied his application for 17 benefits, and Genier requested a hearing before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”). The ALJ 18 conducted a hearing and on May 8, 2008, issued a decision denying Genier’s claims. That 19 decision became the final decision of the Commissioner when the Appeals Council denied 20 Genier’s request for review on September 8, 2008.

* Upon the consent of the parties, the case was referred to a magistrate judge, who conducted the proceedings and decided the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1).

09-3991-cv Genier v. Astrue

Genier commenced an action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York on September 30, 2008, seeking review of the denial of benefits pursuant to 42

U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c). The district court affirmed the agency’s decision, finding that it was supported by substantial evidence, on September 22, 2009.

Evidence

Genier asserted that he became unable to work in August 2005 as a result of morbid obesity and several related impairments, including sleep apnea and mobility and breathing problems. At the time he stopped working, Genier was twenty-seven years old and weighed approximately 400 pounds.

On May 11, 2006, Genier filled out a claimant questionnaire for the Division of Disability Determinations in the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, the state agency charged with adjudication of disability claims on behalf of the federal government. On the questionnaire, Genier described his daily activities. He wrote, in pertinent part, that he “tr[ied] to feed dogs and tr[ied] to let dogs out,” but that his “father help[ed] [him] with feeding and letting dogs out.” He also wrote that he “tr[ied] to do thing[s] around house, like dishes[,] vacuum[,] etc.,” and “tr[ied] to do [his] own laundry,” but that he “need[ed] help” with the laundry because he tired easily, and that he was restricted in other household chores because it was “difficult for [him] to get around.”

In November 2007, Genier underwent bariatric surgery. As a consequence of the surgery and related treatments, Genier reduced his weight from 494 pounds in June 2006 to 327 pounds at the time of his hearing before the ALJ, in April 2008. At the hearing, Genier testified that he

09-3991-cv Genier v. Astrue

wished to return to work as soon as his doctor permitted him to do so. Genier testified that he continued to suffer from sleep apnea, high blood pressure, and back pain, but that they had improved significantly with treatment and as a result of his surgery and weight loss. He testified that he continued to suffer from severe knee pain, which caused his knee to give out approximately once a week.

Genier further testified that, as of the time of his hearing, he was sometimes able to clean, cook, and do outdoor chores, including snow shoveling and plowing. He indicated that he had been more substantially limited in these activities prior to his surgery and weight loss. He reported being able to stand or walk for ten to fifteen minutes at a time, and that he had regained the ability to climb stairs. The ALJ’s Decision

In determining that Genier was not disabled, the ALJ used the sequential evaluation process set forth at 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 and 416.920. The ALJ concluded that Genier’s obesity and sleep apnea were “severe” impairments, but that they did not correspond to an impairment set forth in Appendix 1 of 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P. The ALJ found that Genier retained the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform a wide range of medium work. Specifically, he concluded that Genier could lift up to thirty pounds occasionally and up to twenty pounds regularly, and that he could sit, stand, and walk for six hours each in an eight-hour workday. In reaching this conclusion, the ALJ considered Genier’s assertions of pain and fatigue, but did not credit those assertions, as he found them to be contrary to the objective medical evidence and other evidence of record, including Genier’s reports of his daily activities.

09-3991-cv Genier v. Astrue

The ALJ’s decision to discredit Genier’s assertions was based, at least in part, on the fact that, according to the ALJ, Genier “indicated in a questionnaire dated May 11, 2006 that he was able to care for his dogs, vacuum, do dishes, cook, and do laundry.” The ALJ added that Genier “testified at the hearing that he performs these household chores.”

Because Genier’s prior jobs required him to perform at exertional levels beyond his RFC, he could not perform his past relevant work. Given his age, education, experience, and RFC, however, the ALJ concluded that under Medical-Vocational Rule 203.29, set forth at 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2, Genier was capable of doing jobs that existed in significant numbers in the national economy. Because he determined that Genier was capable of substantial productive activity, the ALJ ruled that Genier was not disabled under the Act, and denied his claims.