Rodriguez v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Rosa Iliana Rodriguez sought review of the Social Security Administration’s final decision denying her applications for Social Security Disability benefits and Supplemental Security Income. She alleged that physical and mental impairments prevented her from working beginning November 27, 2015. In this action, she challenged the evaluation of her depression, anxiety, and bipolar disorder; she did not challenge the administrative law judge’s findings concerning her physical impairments.

The administrative law judge had denied benefits in 2018, finding Rodriguez’s mental impairments non-severe and concluding that she could perform past relevant work. In an earlier round of this case, the Commissioner consented to a remand. The Appeals Council then vacated the 2018 decision and directed the administrative law judge to reconsider the medical opinions, apply the required method for evaluating mental impairments, and explain the residual functional capacity—the work activities a claimant can still perform despite impairments.

On remand, the administrative law judge again found Rodriguez’s mental impairments non-severe. He found only mild limitations in the four relevant areas of mental functioning and concluded that she could perform sedentary work and her past work as a medical billing clerk. The administrative law judge relied significantly on a 2022 psychological examination, while giving less weight to earlier opinions and evidence indicating more serious limitations.

Court’s Analysis

The court distinguished between Rodriguez’s condition in 2022 and her condition during the earlier period. It held that substantial evidence supported the finding that her mental impairments were non-severe when the 2022 decision was issued. In particular, the 2022 consultative examiner found only mild limitations in all four mental-function areas, and that opinion addressed Rodriguez’s current limitations.

The court reached a different conclusion concerning 2015 through about 2018. It found considerable evidence that Rodriguez’s mental impairments met the low threshold for being considered severe during that period. The evidence included opinions from her treating psychotherapist, a state-agency psychological consultant, and examining doctors; a severe-depression diagnosis; high depression and anxiety screening scores; and reports of hopelessness, sleeplessness, social isolation, and at times suicidal or homicidal thoughts.

The court concluded that the administrative law judge had largely repeated the reasoning that had already been found deficient, without adequately explaining why the earlier medical opinions should be rejected. The court also found that the 2022 examiner’s opinion could not cure the earlier problem because that examiner evaluated only Rodriguez’s current limitations and did not assess the 2015-to-2018 period.

The error was not harmless. Although the administrative law judge discussed Rodriguez’s mental impairments at the second step of the disability analysis, the later residual-functional-capacity discussion focused almost entirely on her physical impairments and did not explain how her mental limitations affected her ability to work. The court therefore could not determine that the administrative law judge would have reached the same result had he treated the earlier mental impairments as severe.

The court also explained that Rodriguez was over 55 when she applied for benefits. Under the applicable agency rules, a claimant of that age limited to sedentary, unskilled work may be found disabled if her prior job skills are not transferable. Evidence that Rodriguez might have been limited to unskilled work could therefore affect whether she could perform her past semiskilled job as a medical biller and whether the agency’s Grid Rules required a finding of disability.

Disposition

Judge Gary Stein granted Rodriguez’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

The court directed the administrative law judge to treat Rodriguez’s mental impairments as severe at step two as of the initial 2018 ruling; conduct the remaining steps on that basis; determine whether she could perform semiskilled work or only unskilled work; assess the consequences under the Grid Rules; determine the dates of any closed period of disability; and further develop the medical record as appropriate. The opinion states that the administrative law judge must determine how long the mental impairments persisted and the precise dates of any closed period in the first instance.