Michael M. v. Saul

Background

Michael M. sought judicial review of an administrative law judge’s decision denying his applications for benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. He alleged that he became disabled on August 10, 2014. The administrative law judge denied the applications on July 2, 2019, and the Appeals Council denied review on June 22, 2020.

The administrative law judge found at the second step of the required five-step disability analysis that Michael M. had severe major depressive disorder, anxiety, and a neurocognitive disorder with a processing speed of 62. The judge did not find the Achilles tendon injury to be severe. The judge also found that Michael M. could perform work at all exertional levels, subject to limitations involving simple and repetitive tasks, limited interaction with other people, few workplace changes, and no rapid or high-production work. At the fourth step, the judge found that Michael M. could perform his past work as a cook’s helper.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that the administrative law judge made an error at the second step by finding that the Achilles tendon injury was non-severe. The court said the administrative law judge’s description of the medical record was substantially incorrect and failed to account for evidence of chronic pain, inflammation, arthritis, and arthropathies affecting multiple locations.

The court also held that the administrative law judge failed to mention or evaluate Michael M.’s arthritis and other arthropathies of the lower leg at multiple sites. The record included diagnoses of arthritis and arthropathy, continuing complaints of leg, back, and hip pain, observations of a limp and other pain-related behavior, and evidence that medication had not eliminated the symptoms.

The court explained that an administrative law judge has a duty to fully and fairly develop the record, including when the evidence is ambiguous or inadequate for proper evaluation. The court found that this duty was not discharged. It also found that the errors were not harmless because the pain and joint conditions could cause functional limitations that were not considered at later steps of the disability analysis.

The court declined to decide Michael M.’s remaining arguments because those issues could be addressed after the record was developed on remand and the analysis might change. It nevertheless ordered the Commissioner to consider and address those issues in any later administrative law judge decision.

Disposition and Remand Instructions

The court granted Michael M.’s summary-judgment motion and denied the Commissioner’s summary-judgment motion. It remanded the case for further proceedings.

On remand, the administrative law judge was ordered to obtain a suitable consultative examination by a rheumatologist addressing Michael M.’s arthropathies and their resulting limitations. The administrative law judge was also ordered to hold a second hearing and thoroughly develop Michael M.’s testimony about those conditions. If a medical expert testified, the expert had to hear Michael M.’s testimony about the relevant subject before giving opinions addressing it.