Durant v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

William Durant brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which allows judicial review of a Social Security benefits decision. He challenged the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of his application for Supplemental Security Income benefits. The agency had determined that Durant was not disabled under the Social Security Act.

Durant first applied for disability benefits in October 2015, alleging disability beginning June 1, 2015. After an initial denial, he submitted another claim in March 2016 and requested a hearing. He appeared before an administrative law judge in June 2018, represented by counsel, but the judge denied benefits in July 2018. The Appeals Council denied review.

Durant then brought an earlier related proceeding. The parties agreed to send the matter back to the agency, and in February 2020 the Appeals Council vacated its prior decision and sent the matter back to an administrative law judge. Durant appeared at another hearing in November 2022 and submitted additional medical evidence. In September 2023, the administrative law judge again denied benefits. The Appeals Council did not take jurisdiction, so that decision became final for purposes of judicial review in this action.

Report and recommendation

Durant moved to remand the matter to the Social Security Administration. Magistrate Judge Judith C. McCarthy recommended granting the motion. Neither Durant nor the Commissioner timely objected to the recommendation, so Judge Roman reviewed it for clear error—an obvious mistake in the record or reasoning.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that judicial review of a denial of Supplemental Security Income is limited to whether the agency applied the correct legal standard and whether its conclusions were supported by substantial evidence, meaning relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate. The court does not decide independently whether the claimant is disabled.

The administrative law judge used the required five-step disability analysis. The judge found that Durant had not engaged in substantial gainful activity and had severe impairments including degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, obesity, chronic pain syndrome, and hammer toes following corrective surgery. The judge concluded that Durant could perform sedentary work with the use of a one-hand cane for ambulation and determined, based in part on vocational-expert testimony, that jobs existed in significant numbers that Durant could perform.

The court nevertheless agreed with the magistrate judge that the administrative law judge did not properly apply the treating physician rule. That rule generally requires giving deference to the medical opinion of a claimant’s treating physician. The court also found that the administrative law judge failed to demonstrate that the assessment of Durant’s residual functional capacity—his remaining ability to work despite his impairments—was supported by substantial evidence.

Disposition

Judge Roman adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in its entirety. The court granted Durant’s motion and remanded the matter to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings consistent with the opinion and the recommendation. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment in Durant’s favor, send the action back to the agency, terminate the motion, and terminate the action. The opinion did not award benefits or determine that Durant was disabled.