John M. v. O'Malley

Background

The Commissioner determined in April 2019 that John M.’s disability had ended on April 29, 2019, and that he was no longer entitled to Disability Insurance Benefits. After administrative proceedings, Administrative Law Judge Michael Stacchini again concluded on November 8, 2023, that John M.’s disability ended on that date and that he had not become disabled again.

The Administrative Law Judge found that John M. could perform light work with restrictions, including avoiding unprotected heights, hazardous machinery, and work requiring him to restrain third parties. Although he could not return to his past work as a police officer, the Administrative Law Judge found that other jobs existed in significant numbers in the national economy that he could perform. The Appeals Council later denied review, making that decision the Commissioner’s final decision.

Issue

John M. asked the district court to send the case back for additional administrative proceedings. He argued that the Administrative Law Judge used the wrong age category when deciding whether other work was available. The court’s review was limited to whether the Commissioner applied the correct legal standard and whether substantial evidence supported the decision. Substantial evidence means relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate support for a conclusion.

The regulations recognize age categories including a person closely approaching advanced age, generally ages 50 through 54, and a person of advanced age, generally age 55 or older. The Administrative Law Judge found that the higher category—closely approaching advanced age—applied to John M. as of the benefits-cessation date.

Court’s Analysis

The court focused on the vocational expert’s testimony. The Administrative Law Judge asked whether a hypothetical person with John M.’s age, education, and work experience, along with the stated work restrictions, could perform jobs existing in significant numbers. But the Administrative Law Judge did not state the hypothetical person’s age in the question.

The record therefore did not make clear whether the vocational expert considered John M. to be 48, his age on the cessation date, or 52, his age at the later administrative hearing. Because it was unclear which age category the vocational expert used, the testimony could not adequately support the conclusion that other work was available. The court also noted that John M. did not substantively challenge the residual functional capacity finding; any such challenge would not have succeeded based on the court’s reading of the record. The court did not reach a separate argument about hardship from repaying benefits.

Disposition

The court held that remand was required because of the ambiguity in the vocational expert’s testimony. It granted John M.’s motion requesting remand for further administrative proceedings and remanded the matter for proceedings consistent with the decision. The order did not finally determine whether John M. was entitled to continued benefits. Judge Gary R. Jones signed the Decision and Order.