Oswaldo N., et al. v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Oswaldo N., Jr. applied for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits in March 2018, alleging that he became unable to work on January 18, 2018. The Social Security Administration denied the application. After earlier judicial proceedings resulted in remands for additional proceedings, an administrative law judge held a third hearing on March 7, 2024.

On July 24, 2024, Administrative Law Judge Vincent M. Cascio again denied benefits. The administrative law judge found that, as of December 31, 2023—the last date Oswaldo N., Jr. was insured—he had severe impairments including lumbar degenerative disc disease, chronic pain syndrome, and asthma. The judge determined that he could perform a limited range of sedentary work, could not return to his past work as a police officer, but could perform other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Oswaldo N., Jr., represented by counsel, moved for judgment on the pleadings. The motion asked the court to reverse the Commissioner’s decision. The Commissioner opposed the motion and requested judgment in the Commissioner’s favor.

Issues and analysis

Oswaldo N., Jr. raised three principal arguments: that the administrative law judge improperly evaluated the medical opinions, improperly assessed his reports of pain and other symptoms, and relied on faulty vocational-expert testimony.

Medical opinions. The court upheld the administrative law judge’s treatment of the medical evidence. The administrative law judge found Dr. Michael Healy’s opinion partially persuasive, Dr. Jay Dinovitser’s opinion persuasive, and a state-agency reviewing physician’s opinion partially persuasive. The court concluded that the administrative law judge reasonably relied on treatment notes showing pain and restricted movement but also generally normal gait, negative testing, mostly intact strength, and intact sensation and reflexes. The court also found that the residual functional capacity assessment—which describes the most a claimant can still do despite limitations—was supported by the medical opinions and record evidence.

Reported symptoms. Oswaldo N., Jr. testified that severe back pain required him to lie down frequently, limited sitting, standing, and bending, and sometimes prevented him from getting out of bed. He also described medication side effects and needing family assistance with household chores. The court held that the administrative law judge reasonably found that his impairments could cause the alleged symptoms but that the reported intensity and limiting effects were not fully consistent with the record. The court cited the treatment history, clinical findings, medical opinions, and daily activities such as driving and self-care. It also found no reason to remand based on the discussion of side effects, noting the record’s descriptions of symptom improvement and lack of significant side effects.

Vocational evidence. The administrative law judge relied on vocational-expert testimony that a person with the assessed limitations could perform work as an information clerk, document preparer, or call-out operator. Oswaldo N., Jr. argued that these occupations were obsolete or supported by outdated information. The court found that the administrative law judge adequately questioned the vocational expert about whether document-preparer work was performed in a modern format. The vocational expert testified that the work had changed with technology but remained sedentary, unskilled work available in significant numbers. The court further held that, even if document preparer were considered obsolete, the information-clerk and call-out-operator positions independently supported the step-five finding.

Disposition

The court concluded that the administrative law judge’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and applied the correct legal standards. Judge Gary R. Jones DENIED Oswaldo N., Jr.’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; GRANTED the Commissioner’s request for judgment on the pleadings; and DISMISSED the case. The Clerk was directed to enter final judgment for the Commissioner and close the file.