Muniz v. Bisignano

Background

Tina Muniz sought judicial review of a Social Security decision concerning her applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The administrative law judge found that Muniz was disabled beginning December 11, 2020, but not from September 6, 2017, through December 10, 2020.

The case had previously been sent back to the Social Security Administration for additional proceedings. After another hearing, a new administrative law judge again found that Muniz was not disabled before December 11, 2020. Muniz then asked the court to remand the case for payment of benefits for the period from September 16, 2017, through December 10, 2020. In the alternative, she sought another remand for further proceedings. The Commissioner agreed that the administrative law judge’s decision contained legal errors but requested a remand for further proceedings instead of an immediate benefits award.

Parties’ Arguments

The Commissioner conceded that the administrative law judge failed to incorporate into the residual functional capacity finding the moderate limitations identified by consulting psychologist Janine Marinos, Ph.D. Residual functional capacity is the most a claimant can still do despite medically established limitations.

Muniz argued that the record was fully developed and that there could be no serious doubt that her disability began on September 6, 2017. She relied on Dr. Marinos’s opinion that Muniz would have moderate difficulty maintaining concentration and coping with ordinary workplace stress. Muniz also relied on vocational-expert testimony that a hypothetical person who was off task 15 percent of the workday would be unemployable.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied the Ninth Circuit’s three-step framework for deciding whether to remand a Social Security case for an award of benefits rather than for additional administrative proceedings. The first step was satisfied because the Commissioner conceded that the administrative law judge had made legal errors.

At the second step, the court considered whether the record was fully developed, whether unresolved issues remained, and whether additional administrative proceedings would be useful. The court rejected Muniz’s argument that the vocational expert’s response required an immediate benefits award. The testimony concerned a hypothetical person who was off task 15 percent of the workday; the record did not show that the administrative law judge intended to translate Dr. Marinos’s description of “moderate difficulties” into that specific 15-percent limitation.

The court also noted that Muniz had previously made a similar argument and had not provided legal authority or an explanation supporting that translation. The court concluded that the administrative law judge still needed to consider how the Social Security Administration understood and applied the term “moderate difficulties” in Muniz’s case.

Because unresolved issues remained, the court did not reach the third step—whether to treat discredited testimony and medical opinions as true for purposes of deciding whether Muniz was disabled. The court concluded that further administrative proceedings would serve a useful purpose, including reevaluating Dr. Marinos’s opinion and clarifying how the identified limitations affected Muniz’s ability to work between September 6, 2017, and December 10, 2020.

Disposition

The court granted the Commissioner’s motion to remand for further proceedings and denied Muniz’s motion to remand for payment of benefits. The court stated that a separate judgment would be entered and that the clerk would terminate the case.