Angel M. v. O'Malley

Background

Angel M. asked the court to review the Social Security decision denying benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The administrative law judge (ALJ) found that Angel M. could carry out simple instructions and occasionally interact with coworkers and supervisors. The ALJ had found persuasive the opinions of two state agency medical consultants, who said Angel M. was capable of superficial interactions with supervisors and coworkers and was limited to simple instructions.

The opinion states that Frank J. Bisignano was substituted for Martin J. O’Malley under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d).

The residual-functional-capacity finding

The court held that the ALJ did not support the residual functional capacity (RFC)—the most a person can do despite limitations—with substantial evidence. The ALJ credited the consultants’ opinions but changed “superficial” interactions to “occasional” interactions without explanation.

The court distinguished the two terms. “Occasional” describes how often an interaction occurs, while “superficial” describes the quality of the interaction. Because occasional interactions may be more than superficial, the ALJ’s omission of the word “superficial” was an error. The court rejected the Commissioner’s arguments that the terms had no material difference or that the consultants had not intended to limit Angel M. to superficial interactions.

The court found the error harmful because questions given to a vocational expert must include all functional limitations supported by the record, and including the superficial-interaction limitation might have eliminated some potential jobs.

Angel M.’s testimony and daily activities

The ALJ also concluded that Angel M.’s testimony was inconsistent with daily activities. The court disagreed, finding that the activities did not clearly contradict the testimony.

Angel M. testified that he played video games and watched television for about two hours a day when he was not doing chores. The record also referred to video games, television and movies, music, and daily walks. The court noted that the ALJ had characterized Angel M. as playing games all day, but the cited progress notes did not state how long he played.

Angel M. testified that he had difficulty leaving home and did not shop alone because he feared being beaten, stared at, or shot. He said that he looked at his phone rather than at other people while shopping. The court found this testimony consistent with statements to clinicians about avoiding social places, avoiding eye contact, and fearing paranoid thoughts when looking at people.

The court also found that brief attempts to attend school or work did not clearly contradict Angel M.’s testimony. The record indicated that he attended school in late 2022 but was no longer in school by January 2023. It also indicated that a part-time Dollar Tree job lasted approximately one to two months in 2021, with no indication that he worked afterward. The court held that using these activities to reject the testimony was not harmless.

Disposition

The court held that the ALJ’s errors may have affected the final disability determination. Judge Alex G. Tse vacated the ALJ’s decision denying benefits and remanded the case to the Social Security Commissioner for further proceedings. Because conflicts and ambiguities remained in the record, the court did not remand for payment of benefits. The court declined to address Angel M.’s alternative arguments for remand.