Chad B. v. Bisagnano

Background

Chad B. sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying his application for Disability Insurance Benefits. He alleged that he became disabled on November 8, 2021. The Social Security Administration denied the application initially and on reconsideration. After a hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) issued an unfavorable decision on August 26, 2024.

The ALJ found several severe impairments, including obstructive sleep apnea, iron deficiency anemia, type 2 diabetes, obesity, and vertigo. The ALJ found Chad B.’s mild neurocognitive disorder non-severe, finding mild limitations in understanding, remembering, and applying information, and in concentrating, persisting, or maintaining pace. The ALJ found no limitation in interacting with others or adapting and managing himself.

The ALJ found persuasive the opinion of consulting psychologist Marlin O. Trulsen, Ph.D. Dr. Trulsen stated that Chad B. could respond appropriately to brief and superficial contact with coworkers and supervisors. The ALJ nevertheless found that Chad B. could perform light work with specified environmental and postural restrictions, without including mental restrictions. Based on testimony from a vocational expert, the ALJ found that Chad B. could perform work as a mailroom clerk, office helper, or merchandise marker and therefore was not disabled.

Issues and analysis

Chad B. raised two challenges to the residual functional capacity (RFC), meaning the most work a person can still perform despite physical or mental limitations. First, he argued that the RFC should have included limits addressing his mental impairments. Second, he argued that the RFC did not adequately address his vertigo.

Mental limitations. The court held that the ALJ’s failure to address the mental limitations required remand. An ALJ must consider all impairments, including impairments found non-severe, when determining the RFC. Although a finding of a mental impairment does not automatically require mental restrictions in the RFC, the RFC cannot entirely ignore mental impairments without an explanation.

The court found that the ALJ relied on Dr. Trulsen’s report, identified the brief-and-superficial-contact restriction, and found the opinion persuasive. Yet the ALJ included no mental limitation in the RFC and did not explain why the restriction was omitted. The court concluded that this omission affected the hypothetical questions posed to the vocational expert and meant that substantial evidence did not support the finding that Chad B. could perform the identified jobs. The court stated that the ALJ could ultimately determine that no mental restriction was needed, but would have to analyze and explain that conclusion.

Vertigo. The court rejected Chad B.’s challenge to the RFC’s treatment of vertigo. The ALJ identified vertigo as a severe impairment, discussed Chad B.’s complaints and treatment, and concluded that some restrictions were appropriate. The court found that the ALJ’s conclusion that additional vertigo-based limitations were not necessary was supported by the record, including benign physical-examination findings and the course of and response to treatment. The court therefore found no basis to reverse the ALJ on the vertigo issue.

Disposition

The court ordered a remand to the Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings consistent with the order. It expressly ordered that Chad B.’s request for remand was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. It also ordered that the Commissioner’s request for affirmance was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The court did not direct that benefits be awarded; it required further administrative proceedings concerning the mental limitations in the RFC, while finding the vertigo analysis supported by substantial evidence.