Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Georgette L. sought judicial review of the denial of her claim for Title II disability insurance benefits. After she amended her alleged disability onset date to May 29, 2019, an administrative law judge found that she had several severe physical and mental impairments but retained the residual functional capacity to perform work between the sedentary and light exertional levels.
The ALJ found that Georgette L. had no past relevant work but could perform jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy, including table worker, optical goods bench worker, and circuit board inspector. In reaching that conclusion, the ALJ did not include any limitation for using a walker. Georgette L. argued that the ALJ improperly required proof that her walker was medically necessary for a continuous 12-month period and relied on records that did not meaningfully show whether she used an assistive device.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that the ALJ applied an unsupported 12-month continuous-use standard when evaluating Georgette L.’s need for a walker. The governing Social Security ruling requires medical documentation establishing the need for a hand-held assistive device and describing the circumstances in which it is needed, but it does not require proof that the device itself was used continuously for 12 months. The statutory duration requirement concerns the underlying impairment, and the ALJ had already classified Georgette L.’s degenerative disc disease and hip osteoarthritis as severe impairments.
The court also held that substantial evidence did not support the finding that Georgette L. required no assistive device. The ALJ relied partly on telephone, video, and mental-health visits that could not establish whether she walked with a device, while the record documented walker use, spinal surgery, continuing pain treatment, abnormal imaging, and other physical findings. The error was prejudicial because the vocational expert testified that a person who needed a walker could not work in the national economy. The court granted Georgette L.’s summary-judgment motion, denied the Commissioner’s motion, vacated the benefits decision, and remanded for further proceedings without deciding whether she was disabled.
Key Takeaways
- The 12-month duration requirement applies to the medically determinable impairment, not independently to continuous use of a walker or other accommodation.
- Telephone, video, or mental-health encounters that do not permit observation of gait do not constitute evidence that a claimant was not using an assistive device.
- Omitting a walker limitation was prejudicial because the vocational expert testified that a person requiring a walker could not perform work in the national economy.
Why It Matters
The opinion distinguishes the duration of an underlying impairment from the circumstances in which an assistive device is medically required. An ALJ assessing a walker or cane must evaluate the relevant medical documentation and the particular situations in which the claimant needs the device rather than demand proof of uninterrupted use for 12 months.
The decision also underscores that an RFC error warrants remand when it could change the Step Five jobs analysis. Here, the vocational testimony made the omitted walker issue potentially outcome-determinative.