Salmela
v. Colvin – ED Pa. – April 30, 2015
ALJ
failed to present the VE with a hypothetical question that completely presented
Mr. Salmela’s limitations. Case remanded
for further proceedings.
In
questioning a vocational expert, the Third Circuit has held “in the clearest of
terms” that a hypothetical question must include all of a claimant’s
impairments that are supported by the record.....If the hypothetical does not
include all of the claimant’s substantiated impairments, “the question is
deficient and the expert’s answer to it cannot be considered substantial
evidence.” Id.
Therefore,
courts in this Circuit have repeatedly found that a failure to include
limitations in mental functioning in a hypothetical question posed to a
vocational expert calls for remand....., 2015) (remanding because the failure
of the ALJ to include moderate limitations in social functioning in the
hypothetical question posed to the vocational expert rendered the question
“‘deficient,’” such that it could not “‘be considered substantial evidence’”
and was not harmless error) (quoting Chrupcala v. Heckler, 829 F.2d
1269, 1276 (3d Cir. 1987)); Pounds v. Colvin, Civil Action No. 13-440,
2014 WL 3845728, at *4-6 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 4, 2014) (remanding and holding that
including a limitation on plaintiff’s interaction with the general public was
insufficient to account for moderate limitations in social functioning); Seagraves
v. Colvin, CA No. 13-718, 2014 WL 657549, at *2 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 20, 2014)
(remanding for the ALJ to either explain the omission of plaintiff’s moderate
limitations in social functioning from the description of plaintiff’s residual
functional capacity/hypothetical question or to obtain vocational expert
testimony in response to a complete and accurate hypothetical); Debias v.
Astrue, Civil Action No. 11-3545, 2012 WL 2120451, at *5-6 (E.D. Pa. June
12, 2012) (finding the vocational expert’s testimony “inherently flawed”
because of a failure to include moderate limitations in social functioning and
remanding “so the ALJ can provide an accurate hypothetical that includes
Plaintiff’s moderate social function impairment”); Lam v. Astrue, Civil
Action No. 09-4331, 2011 WL 1884006, at *14 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2011) (“Until
the ALJ forecloses the possibility that the VE could have changed his testimony
if the ALJ had included limitations pertinent to the ALJ’s own finding of
‘moderate’ limitations in social functioning, the VE’s answer to the
hypothetical as posed cannot be said to constitute substantial evidence upon
which the ALJ can properly rely.”).
Here, the ALJ clearly found that Mr. Salmela had moderate
limitations in social functioning, but failed to include those limitations in
her description of Mr. Salmela’s residual functional capacity or in her
hypothetical question to the vocational expert. Because the ALJ did not explain
her failure to include Mr. Salmela’s moderate limitations in social functioning
at these later stages in the analysis, the Court may not speculate now as to
her potential reasons for doing so. Thus, given that it is impossible to tell
whether the omission was intentional, the Court must turn to the more difficult
question of whether the omission, intentional or not, was harmless.
