Caro Jr. v. O'Malley
- Jones
- 1:24-cv-04782
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 25
Domingo C., Jr. v. Acting Commissioner of Social Security: Judge Jones recommends remand after finding errors in evaluating mental-health opinions and symptoms.
Domingo C., Jr. and the Acting Commissioner of Social Security; the recommendation requires further administrative review of Domingo C., Jr.’s disability-benefit applications.
What happened
In Domingo C., Jr. v. Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Domingo C., Jr. challenged the denial of his applications for disability and supplemental security income benefits. The Administrative Law Judge found that he had severe depression and anxiety but could perform simple work with limited workplace interaction.
The report recommends sending the case back for further proceedings because the Administrative Law Judge did not properly evaluate opinions from Domingo C., Jr.’s treating mental-health providers or his reports about his symptoms. The report also says the record may need more development concerning whether his disability began before he started treatment with those providers.
Judge Gary R. Jones recommends granting Domingo C., Jr.’s request for judgment on the pleadings, denying the Commissioner’s request, and remanding the case under sentence four of the Social Security Act. The recommendation is subject to objections and is not presented as a final district-court order.
The detailed version
- Caro Jr. v. O'Malley · No. 1:24-cv-04782
- Jones
- Apr. 29, 2025
Background
Domingo C., Jr. applied for Supplemental Security Income and Disability Insurance Benefits in July 2021, alleging that his disability began July 1, 2017. The Social Security Administration denied the applications initially and on reconsideration. After a hearing, Administrative Law Judge Raymond Prybylski denied the applications on July 7, 2023. The Appeals Council denied review on February 26, 2024, making the Administrative Law Judge’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision.
The Administrative Law Judge found that Domingo C., Jr. had severe depressive and anxiety disorders, but that these impairments did not meet or equal a listed impairment. The Administrative Law Judge found that he retained the residual functional capacity—the most he could do despite his impairments—to perform work at all exertional levels, subject to limits including simple tasks, occasional decision-making, occasional interaction with coworkers and supervisors, and no contact with the general public. The Administrative Law Judge found that he had no past relevant work but could perform other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy.
The parties filed competing requests for judgment on the pleadings, asking the court to decide the case based on the administrative record and the parties’ written arguments.
Issues and analysis
Domingo C., Jr. argued that the Administrative Law Judge improperly evaluated medical opinion evidence and his subjective complaints about the effects of his symptoms.
The record included opinions from treating psychotherapist Michele Feldman and treating psychiatric nurse practitioner Danielle Gustama. Both had treated Domingo C., Jr. since July 2020 and described significant depression, anxiety, social isolation, difficulty concentrating, and auditory hallucinations. They assessed substantial or marked limitations in several work-related mental abilities and stated that his symptoms would worsen in a work or work-like setting. The record also included opinions from non-examining State Agency consultants, but the Administrative Law Judge did not find those opinions persuasive either.
The report concludes that the Administrative Law Judge improperly discounted the treating providers’ opinions. It identifies several problems: insufficient consideration of the providers’ lengthy treatment relationships and opportunities to observe Domingo C., Jr.; failure to address the consistency between the two treating providers’ opinions; excessive reliance on his appropriate presentation during periodic treatment visits; and excessive reliance on limited daily activities such as laundry, grocery shopping, and caring for his father. The report explains that functioning in supportive or solitary settings does not necessarily show an ability to maintain competitive employment on a regular basis.
The report also concludes that the errors in evaluating the treating providers’ opinions undermined the evaluation of Domingo C., Jr.’s subjective complaints. Although the Administrative Law Judge found that his medically determinable impairments could reasonably cause the alleged symptoms, the Administrative Law Judge found that his statements about their intensity and limiting effects were not entirely consistent with the record. The report states that his complaints were supported by, and consistent with, the assessments of both long-term treating providers.
Recommended disposition
The report recommends remanding the case for further administrative proceedings so the treating-source opinions and Domingo C., Jr.’s subjective complaints can be properly considered. It also states that additional record development may be necessary because the alleged onset date in 2017 predates the treatment relationships that began in 2020. On remand, the Administrative Law Judge may need to seek retrospective opinions from the treating sources or assistance from an impartial medical expert concerning the onset date.
The report recommends that Domingo C., Jr.’s request for judgment on the pleadings be granted, that the Commissioner’s request for judgment on the pleadings be denied, and that the case be remanded under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The report explains that the parties had fourteen days after service to file objections, so the text provided is a Report and Recommendation rather than a statement that the district judge had already entered the final disposition.
Read the full 25-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.