Channing B. v. Bisignano

Background

Channing B. sought review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying his applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. He alleged that he became disabled on June 5, 2018. After an administrative hearing, the administrative law judge found that Channing B. had severe impairments involving his left ulnar nerve, artery, and flexor tendon, as well as depressive, anxiety, personality, and alcohol-use disorders. The administrative law judge determined that Channing B. could perform a restricted range of light work and could not return to his past work, but could perform other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Channing B. raised three arguments: that the residual functional capacity assessment was unsupported because it did not rely on a medical opinion; that the administrative law judge improperly drew personal inferences from medical evidence; and that the administrative law judge should have developed the record further. The Commissioner argued that a residual functional capacity assessment does not require a specific medical opinion and that the administrative law judge properly relied on the evidence. The Commissioner also pointed to Channing B.’s failure to attend two consultative examinations and failure to submit additional evidence.

Analysis

The court rejected Channing B.’s argument that the residual functional capacity assessment had to be based on a specific medical opinion. The court explained that the assessment must be supported by some medical evidence about the claimant’s ability to function in the workplace, but it need not rely on a particular medical opinion.

The court agreed, however, that the administrative law judge improperly inferred Channing B.’s functional abilities from medical reports and examination findings. For example, the administrative law judge concluded that Channing B. could frequently handle and finger with his left hand partly because Channing B. had not followed up on a recommended hand-surgery evaluation. The court found that the record lacked medical evidence explaining how Channing B.’s left-hand impairment affected his workplace functioning. The court also noted that state-agency consultants had repeatedly found insufficient evidence to assess his mental functioning.

The court further concluded that the administrative law judge rejected the medical opinions addressing Channing B.’s impairments without obtaining adequate replacement evidence. Although the administrative law judge discussed Channing B.’s missed consultative examinations, the decision did not state that the missed examinations were a basis for finding him not disabled and did not explain why another examination was not ordered after the hearing. The court therefore found that the Commissioner’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence and that the record had not been fully and fairly developed.

Recommended disposition

Judge Shannon G. Elkins recommended that Channing B.’s request for relief be granted, that the Commissioner’s request for relief be denied, and that the matter be remanded to the Social Security Administration under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further development of Channing B.’s mental and physical functioning. The document is a report and recommendation, not a district-court order or judgment. The notice states that it is not directly appealable to the Court of Appeals and that objections may be filed under the applicable local rule.