Sean F. v. Kijakazi

Background

Sean F. applied for Social Security Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income benefits. The administrative law judge dismissed the Disability Insurance claim after Sean F. withdrew his hearing request as to that claim, but considered the Supplemental Security Income claim and found that he was not disabled. The administrative law judge found that Sean F. could not return to his past work as a transmission mechanic or automobile mechanic, but could perform other jobs identified by a vocational witness.

Sean F. sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). He argued, among other things, that the administrative law judge’s residual functional capacity finding was not supported by substantial evidence. Residual functional capacity means the most a person can do despite physical or mental limitations.

Court’s analysis

The court focused on Sean F.’s visual limitations. The administrative law judge recognized severe impairments involving Sean F.’s left-eye visual acuity and right-eye diabetic retinopathy, macular edema, and cataract. But the administrative law judge concluded that the right eye was only slightly abnormal and limited the residual functional capacity primarily by restricting peripheral vision in the left eye.

The court determined that the record did not support that assessment. The medical record indicated that diabetic retinopathy affected peripheral vision in both eyes. It also contained repeated reports of minimal, slight, stable-to-worse, or worsening improvement in the right eye, while diabetic macular edema remained significant enough to delay cataract evaluation and treatment. The court concluded that the administrative law judge improperly relied on visual-acuity measurements and an unsupported finding of objective improvement.

The court also rejected the argument that the error was harmless. The vocational witness had considered a hypothetical person with the administrative law judge’s residual functional capacity. Because the residual functional capacity may have changed if the right-eye peripheral-vision limitation had been properly considered, the vocational testimony might also have changed. The court therefore could not conclude that the error had no effect on the disability determination.

The court did not decide Sean F.’s remaining arguments concerning his daily activities, presentation during telehealth visits, social phobia, hand limitations, his father’s statement, or the duty to develop the record.

Remedy and disposition

The court explained that a remand for an immediate award of benefits is reserved for exceptional cases meeting the applicable conditions. It found that this was not such a case because it was not clear that resolving the identified issues in Sean F.’s favor would require a finding that he was disabled.

The court therefore reversed the Commissioner’s final decision, denied the Commissioner’s request to affirm the denial of benefits, and remanded the matter for further proceedings consistent with the order.