Valdovinos v. Kijakazi

Background

Cornelio Bueno Valdovinos brought this Social Security Act case under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking review of agency decisions denying his claims for Social Security Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income. He moved for summary judgment and asked the court to remand both claims for payment of benefits. The Commissioner opposed that motion and moved to remand the 2019 Supplemental Security Income claim for further administrative proceedings.

Valdovinos filed his first disability-insurance application in 2014. After hearings, Administrative Law Judge Mary Beth O’Connor issued a decision stating that he was not disabled, although the document was titled a “Notice of Recommended Decision.” The Appeals Council denied review on October 26, 2018, and stated that the administrative law judge’s decision was final. Valdovinos did not file a federal case until August 3, 2021.

Valdovinos later filed another disability-insurance application and a Supplemental Security Income application in 2019. Administrative Law Judge Sung Park issued an unfavorable decision on the Supplemental Security Income claim. The parties agreed that the vocational expert’s testimony about available occupations was not supported by substantial evidence because the testimony conflicted about how long a person would need to sit during the workday.

Court’s Analysis

2014 disability-insurance claim. The court held that the 2014 decision was final. Although the cover page called it a recommended decision, the decision’s main ruling stated conclusively that Valdovinos was not disabled. The Appeals Council treated the labeling as an error and denied review, which made the administrative law judge’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision.

The court held that the 60-day period for seeking judicial review was a limitations period rather than a jurisdictional requirement. The court therefore could extend the deadline if Valdovinos showed diligence and an extraordinary circumstance or good cause for the delay. Valdovinos argued that he was confused by the “recommended” label and that the decision was in English rather than Spanish. The court rejected that argument because the Appeals Council’s notice, provided in English and Spanish, identified the decision as final and explained the 60-day filing period. The record also showed that Valdovinos had counsel, testified in English, and could read a newspaper in English. Because he offered no other explanation such as illness, injury, or death, the court found that his disability-insurance claim had lapsed.

Amended English-language regulation. The court also rejected Valdovinos’s argument that the agency improperly applied the amended version of 20 C.F.R. § 416.964. The amendment, effective April 27, 2020, removed lack of English-language proficiency as a factor the agency must consider in determining disability eligibility. The court held that Valdovinos’s 2014 claim was already final on October 26, 2018, before the amendment took effect. Therefore, the amendment did not affect that claim, and the administrative law judge properly applied it.

2019 Supplemental Security Income claim. The court declined to order immediate payment of benefits. It applied the test for awarding benefits rather than ordering further agency proceedings: the agency must have given an inadequate legal reason, no unresolved issues may remain, and the record must clearly require a finding of disability.

The court found that the administrative law judge had adequately considered Valdovinos’s testimony, function report, medical records, medical findings, and medical opinions. But an unresolved issue remained: whether Valdovinos could perform another occupation within his residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience. The vocational expert identified occupations compatible with a six-hour sitting limitation, then testified that those occupations required at least seven hours of sitting. Because the administrative law judge did not resolve that conflict, the court could not determine whether Valdovinos was disabled. The court concluded that additional proceedings, including potentially new vocational-expert testimony, were necessary.

Disposition

The final order states that Valdovinos’s motion for summary judgment was DENIED, the Commissioner’s motion for remand pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) was GRANTED, and the case was REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with the Order. The order did not direct immediate payment of benefits.