David W. v. Bisignano

Background

David W. filed this action after the Commissioner of Social Security denied his application for Disability Insurance Benefits and an administrative law judge upheld that denial. Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster recommended granting David W.’s request for relief in part and remanding the matter for additional administrative proceedings. No party objected to the recommendation.

Because there were no objections, the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake. Judge Menendez stated that the court found no error, clear or otherwise, in the recommendation.

Issues and Analysis

The administrative law judge considered three aspects of David W.’s health in determining his residual functional capacity—the work-related limitations he retained despite his impairments: gastrointestinal problems, fatigue, and his possible need for a structured setting because of his mental-health condition.

The court agreed with the magistrate judge that the administrative law judge adequately considered the record regarding gastrointestinal problems and fatigue. Those findings were supported by substantial evidence, and the residual functional capacity included limitations addressing those conditions, including ready access to a restroom.

The court agreed, however, that the administrative law judge had not adequately explained whether David W. needed a structured setting. The record indicated that his improvement might have been partly attributable to the structured settings he received. The Commissioner therefore needed to consider whether, and to what extent, David W.’s need for structure affected his residual functional capacity, including whether support and structure in his daily life reduced his symptoms.

The court also agreed that the administrative law judge’s finding that David W. did not meet the requirements of Paragraph C was not adequately supported. The assessment was brief and conclusory and repeated the applicable requirements without citing record evidence showing whether those requirements were met.

Disposition

The court accepted the Report and Recommendation, granted David W.’s request for relief in part, denied the Commissioner’s request for relief, and remanded the matter to the Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings consistent with the order. The order also states that the matter was dismissed with prejudice. Judgment was ordered to be entered.