Travis M. v. O'Malley

Background

Travis M. sought review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration’s denial of his application for Supplemental Security Income. The administrative law judge found that Travis M. had severe impairments involving loss of central vision acuity, obesity, major depressive disorder, and generalized anxiety disorder, but determined that he was not disabled. The administrative law judge found that Travis M. could perform work at all exertional levels with restrictions, including no work around unprotected heights or moving machinery, no commercial driving, and only simple, routine instructions and tasks. Based on vocational-expert testimony, the administrative law judge identified jobs that Travis M. could perform.

Travis M. moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the administrative law judge improperly assessed his residual functional capacity, improperly evaluated his symptoms, and relied on vocational-expert testimony that did not account for all supported mental-health limitations.

Issues and analysis

The report and recommendation rejected several of Travis M.’s arguments. The administrative law judge had obtained 26 pages of medical records from Travis M.’s period of incarceration, held the hearing record open for additional evidence, and received no indication from Travis M.’s representative that other specific records were missing. The report therefore concluded that the administrative law judge adequately developed the record.

The report also concluded that the lack of a separate function-by-function assessment did not require remand because the law does not impose an automatic remand rule for that omission. It further found that the administrative law judge adequately considered the supportability and consistency of the opinions from Dr. Seth Sebold and Dr. Joshua Goldstein. The administrative law judge explained why Dr. Sebold’s opinion was more persuasive and why Dr. Goldstein’s opinion had limited persuasive value, relying on the examinations, treatment notes, testimony, and other medical evidence.

The report reached a different conclusion about the evaluation of Travis M.’s testimony. The administrative law judge discussed Travis M.’s treatment history and some daily activities, but did not adequately address other required considerations, including the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of his symptoms; factors that worsened them; the medications he took; and the medications’ effectiveness. The administrative law judge also did not identify specific statements by Travis M. and explain why those statements were discredited. The report specifically noted testimony about persistent eye pain, anxiety and claustrophobia during daily tasks or around loud noises and small spaces, flashbacks that interrupted sleep, and medication that did not help when symptoms were most severe.

Because the vocational expert’s hypothetical question was based on an assessment that did not properly evaluate Travis M.’s testimony, the report concluded that the vocational expert’s testimony was not substantial evidence supporting the finding at the final step of the disability analysis.

Recommendation and procedure

Magistrate Judge Henry J. Ricardo recommended that Travis M.’s motion for judgment on the pleadings be granted and that the case be remanded to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The report did not determine that Travis M. was entitled to benefits. It recommended that the administrative law judge reconsider and explain the evaluation of Travis M.’s testimony and symptoms. The parties had fourteen days after service to object, with objections directed to Judge James Oetken.