Prosa v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Nicole M. Prosa sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying her application for disability insurance benefits. She alleged disability beginning January 1, 2015, based on knee, hip, and back problems and adjustment disorder. After an earlier district-court remand, an Administrative Law Judge held a supplemental hearing and again found that Prosa was not disabled.

For the period from January 1, 2015, through February 4, 2019, the Administrative Law Judge found severe impairments involving both knees and obesity. The judge found that Prosa’s alleged lower-back and hip conditions were not medically determinable impairments during the relevant period and that her adjustment disorder was not severe. The judge assessed a capacity for sedentary work with several restrictions, including the ability to kneel occasionally, and found that Prosa could perform her past work as a medical secretary.

Issues and Analysis

Prosa argued that the residual functional capacity, or the work a person can still perform despite medical limitations, was unsupported by substantial evidence. She also argued that the Administrative Law Judge wrongly classified her adjustment disorder as non-severe and failed to develop the administrative record by obtaining additional mental-health records or ordering a psychological examination.

The court agreed with Prosa on the kneeling restriction. Medical opinions from Dr. Hudak and Dr. Glassman recommended no kneeling on Prosa’s left knee, and the Administrative Law Judge found those opinions persuasive or generally persuasive. The judge nevertheless included occasional kneeling in the residual functional capacity without explaining why the more restrictive portions of those opinions were rejected. The court held that this unexplained departure was not supported by substantial evidence. The vocational expert had been asked to consider the occasional-kneeling restriction, and the Commissioner did not argue that the error was harmless.

The court rejected Prosa’s other arguments. It concluded that the Administrative Law Judge adequately considered the evidence when finding that Prosa’s adjustment disorder caused no more than mild limitations. The court also found no obvious gap in the record requiring further development, noting the existing psychological evidence, Prosa’s testimony about limited mental-health treatment, and her counsel’s statement that the record was complete.

Disposition

The court granted Prosa’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), it remanded the matter to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with the opinion and order. The Clerk of Court was requested to enter judgment.