Patricio v. Social Security

Background

Miguel Carlos Patricio sought judicial review of an administrative law judge’s denial of his application for benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. The Appeals Council denied his request for review, making the administrative law judge’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision for purposes of the court’s review. Both sides moved for summary judgment, which asks the court to decide the case based on the record without a trial.

The administrative law judge found that Patricio had severe degenerative disc disease, degenerative joint disease, depressive disorder, and anxiety disorder. The judge determined that Patricio could perform light work with occasional overhead reaching, simple routine tasks involving unskilled work, and occasional public contact. Because the judge concluded that Patricio could perform jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy, the judge found that he was not disabled.

Court’s Analysis

The court focused on the presumption of continuing non-disability that arose from an earlier administrative denial. Under that presumption, a claimant must show changed circumstances indicating greater disability. The court held that Patricio had shown changed circumstances because new evidence supported an anxiety disorder that was separate from his previously recognized depressive disorder. The administrative law judge therefore erred by finding that Patricio had not rebutted the presumption.

The court found that this error was not harmless because the administrative law judge relied on the prior decision and its residual functional capacity assessment when formulating the new residual functional capacity. The court also found that the administrative law judge failed to address Patricio’s somatic symptom disorder and personality disorder at the second step of the disability analysis. According to the court, that omission could affect the entire disability analysis.

The court additionally found that the administrative law judge did not provide substantial-evidence-based reasons for rejecting the opinions of Lesleigh Franklin and Elizabeth Walser and assigning controlling weight to consultative examiner Jodi D. Snyder. The court noted that the Franklin and Walser evaluation included multiple diagnostic procedures, standardized psychological tests, a clinical interview, a symptom inventory, a records review, and an extensive report interpreting the test results.

Disposition

The court GRANTED Patricio’s amended motion for summary judgment, DENIED the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, and REMANDED the matter for further proceedings in accordance with the order. The court stated that further proceedings were required based on Patricio’s rebuttal of the presumption of continuing non-disability. A separate judgment was to issue.