Richard Ortiz v. Nancy Berryhill

Background

Richard Ortiz applied for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. He alleged that his disability began on January 1, 2012. The Social Security Administration initially denied the application and denied it again on reconsideration. After a hearing, Administrative Law Judge Arthur Zeidman found Ortiz not disabled for the relevant period, January 2012 through September 2015.

The administrative law judge found that Ortiz had degenerative disc and facet disease of the lumbar spine and degenerative joint disease of the left hip. He also found that Ortiz had engaged in substantial gainful activity as an Uber driver beginning in September 2015, but not from the alleged onset date through September 2015. The judge determined that Ortiz retained the residual functional capacity, meaning the ability to work despite his limitations, to perform the full range of medium work.

The Appeals Council declined review, making the administrative law judge’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision. Ortiz then sought judicial review. Ortiz moved for summary judgment, asking the court to reverse the decision, and the Commissioner moved to affirm it.

Medical Opinions

The court focused on the administrative law judge’s treatment of opinions from state agency medical examiner Dr. Edie Glantz and state agency medical consultants G. Lee, M.D., and Dr. Garcia.

Dr. Glantz examined Ortiz in October 2014 and November 2016. She assessed exertional limitations involving sitting, standing, walking, lifting, and carrying. She also identified postural limitations, including limits on climbing ladders, scaffolds, and ropes, and environmental limitations concerning work at unprotected heights. The administrative law judge gave Dr. Glantz’s assessments “substantial but partial weight,” adopting the exertional limitations but rejecting the postural and environmental limitations.

The court held that the administrative law judge did not give clear and convincing reasons for rejecting those limitations. The stated reasons included the absence of lumbar range-of-motion limitations, minimal pain on palpation, and Ortiz’s ability to sit for extended periods. The court found no logical connection between those reasons and the climbing restrictions. It also found that the administrative law judge’s discussion of Ortiz’s infrequent syncope complaints did not address the reasons Dr. Glantz gave for the height restriction: medication side effects in one opinion and possible distraction from pain in the other.

The court also found that the administrative law judge inaccurately described the state agency consultants’ opinions. For the period from January 10, 2012, through May 31, 2014, Dr. Lee assessed limitations consistent with medium work. For the period beginning June 1, 2014, however, Dr. Lee assessed more restrictive lifting and carrying limits, and both consultants limited Ortiz to light work. The court stated that it did not appear the administrative law judge considered those later-period opinions. Because consideration of those opinions could have led to a more restrictive residual functional capacity, the error was not harmless.

Other Arguments

Ortiz also argued that the administrative law judge improperly evaluated his testimony and improperly conducted the final step of the disability analysis. The court did not reach those arguments because the errors concerning the medical opinions required remand. The court stated that the administrative law judge should revisit those issues on remand. If a different residual functional capacity is assessed, the administrative law judge must pose new questions to the vocational expert based on that determination.

Disposition

The court granted Ortiz’s motion for summary judgment, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and remanded the case for further proceedings. On remand, the administrative law judge must reevaluate the opinions of Drs. Glantz, Lee, and Garcia consistently with the court’s order.