Opinion ID: 855794
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Frequency of Neaton’s Surgeries

Text: The vocational expert reasoned that because Neaton had six Moh’s surgeries between May 30, 2007, and October 21, 2008, or six Moh’s surgeries in one year, four months, and twenty-one days, that he required surgical intervention (and time off for recovery) less often than once every two months and that absenteeism at that rate could be accommodated. However, this analysis averages Neaton’s surgeries over a period of time that includes several months (May-September 2007) when he was not disabled and was in fact still working. It also ignores that Neaton’s surgeries were increasing in frequency throughout 2008. Additionally, the vocational expert only took the Moh’s procedures into account and ignored the curettage and cautery procedures. Neaton indicated that the curettage and cautery procedures “could sometimes involve fifteen or twenty cancer lesions removed during one procedure. This would cause tremendous pain, stress and anxiety. I would leave the doctor office soaked in sweat. Even these surgeries were very painful and made it difficult to sleep.” In fact, it was a curettage and cautery procedure performed on September 6, 2007, that prompted Neaton to cease work. Neaton alleges that over the sixteen months from September 2007 (when he ceased work) until January 2009 (the last medical record in the claim file), he required twelve total surgeries: six Moh’s procedures and six curettage and cautery procedures.13 Assuming recovery time of “a week or more” following a Moh’s surgery as estimated by Dr. Schuldenfrei and recovery time of just a day 13 Neaton required Moh’s surgeries on January 23, 2008, May 14, 2008, June 11, 2008, August 26, 2008, October 21, 2008, and January 6, 2009. He also required curettage and cautery procedures on September 6, 2007, November 1, 2007, December 13, 2007, March 6, 2008, July 2008, and August 28, 2008. -15- or two following a curettage and cautery procedure, Neaton could reasonably miss over thirty-five days of work during that time period. Even at the three-to-four day Moh’s surgery recovery suggested by Dr. Petronic-Rosic, Neaton could reasonably miss approximately thirty days of work or 1.88 days per month. Hartford argues that the vocational analyst scrutinized Neaton’s surgical history from May 2007 to October 2008, taking “a long exposure rather than a snapshot” and considering a period both before and after Hartford ceased paying benefits to Neaton in an effort “[t]o gain a more complete picture of [Neaton’s] condition.” Hartford further suggests that if Neaton were to schedule his surgeries to fall on Thursdays or Fridays, he would miss only one to two days of work bi-monthly during the recovery process.14 We disagree. Neaton made a claim for disability because the surgeries were becoming too frequent for him to maintain job performance. Considering only his medical history prior to his last day of work does not accurately portray the reality of his disability: • September 2007 (the date Neaton ceased work) - January 2009 (sixteen months): six Moh’s procedures plus six curettage and cautery procedures. • January 2008-January 2009 (twelve months): six Moh’s procedures plus three curettage and cautery procedures; • May 2008-January 2009 (eight months): five Moh’s surgeries plus two curettage and cautery procedures. This timeline indicates that the frequency of Neaton’s surgeries increased throughout 2008. 14 This statement assumes that Neaton has some control over the scheduling of his surgeries, but there is no evidence that is in fact the case. Moreover, Neaton noted at oral argument that none of his surgeries were scheduled on Friday. -16- A vocational expert’s opinion that a claimant can perform certain jobs is only substantial evidence to the extent that the vocational expert had a complete, accurate understanding of the claimant’s restrictions and limitations. Felisky v. Bowen, 35 F.3d 1027, 1036 (6th Cir. 1994). The vocational expert’s opinion here, based upon calculating the average frequency of Neaton’s surgeries over a timeline beginning prior to the time he claimed to be disabled, results in an artificially low assumption as to the frequency of his surgeries and work absences, and does not constitute substantial evidence to support Hartford’s denial of benefits. Moreover, regardless of which time period the Court considers, any one of the periods shows a number of absences greater than what government statistics suggest could be accommodated. (See infra at Section III.C).