Dominic R. V. v. O'Malley

Background

Dominic R. V. sought judicial review of an administrative law judge’s decision finding that he was no longer disabled under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. The Social Security Administration’s Appeals Council declined to review that decision, making it the final agency decision subject to review by the district court.

Dominic R. V. had previously been found disabled. During a continuing disability review, the agency determined that he was no longer disabled as of March 23, 2015, based on medical improvement. The administrative law judge later found severe mental and physical impairments, including major depressive disorder, binge-eating disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, a history of a learning disorder, autism, obesity, myopia, and glaucoma. The judge found that sleep apnea was not a severe medically determinable impairment during the relevant period.

The administrative law judge determined that Dominic R. V. could perform less than the full range of light work and could work as an office clerk, hand packager, or auditing clerk. The judge therefore found that he was not disabled.

Court’s analysis

The court found errors at Step Two and Step Three of the disability analysis. At Step Two, the administrative law judge must screen out only impairments that are slight abnormalities with minimal effects on a person’s ability to work. The court concluded that the evidence concerning Dominic R. V.’s obstructive sleep apnea required serious consideration rather than being treated as a plainly minor condition.

The court found that the administrative law judge did not properly consider sleep apnea when evaluating the listed-impairment criteria at Step Three or when determining Dominic R. V.’s residual functional capacity, meaning the most he could do in a work setting. The court noted that the administrative law judge relied on extreme fatigue possibly related to sleep apnea when discounting psychological opinions, but did not expressly evaluate how sleep apnea affected work-related abilities.

The court also found errors in the Step Three evaluation of Dominic R. V.’s ability to interact with others and to understand, remember, and apply information. The administrative law judge relied in part on evidence that Dominic R. V. had visited a friend, gone to movies, and traveled. The court said that this evidence was not substantial evidence of an ability to work with multiple people in light of the broader evidence that he often avoided other people and healthcare.

The court further concluded that the administrative law judge improperly discounted the evaluations of Dr. Rosemarie Ratto and Dr. Lara San Pedro because Dominic R. V. appeared sleepy during testing and evaluation. The court noted that sleepiness was itself a reported daily symptom and that the evaluations described substantial or marked limitations in memory, understanding, concentration, carrying out instructions, pace, and persistence.

The defendants argued that any error was harmless because Dominic R. V. had not shown prejudice, other severe impairments had been considered, treatment records did not establish additional limitations caused by sleep apnea, and he had not identified further restrictions beyond the existing work-capacity assessment. The court rejected that argument because there was no indication that the administrative law judge had considered sleep apnea in the later parts of the analysis, and the omissions could have affected the work-capacity finding and ultimate disability determination.

Disposition

The court held that the administrative law judge erred by finding sleep apnea non-severe at Step Two and by discounting the findings of Dr. Ratto and Dr. San Pedro as inconsistent with the record. It also held that the errors were not harmless because proper consideration of the impairments could affect whether Dominic R. V. was off task enough to be unable to perform the identified jobs.

The court reversed the administrative law judge’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. It directed the agency to develop the record concerning the effect of sleep apnea and its interaction with Dominic R. V.’s other impairments, reconsider whether he met the applicable paragraph B criteria, and order further testing if needed. A separate judgment was to issue.