Richard M. v. Berryhill
- Ann Montgomery
- 0:17-cv-05125
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 8
In Richard M. v. Berryhill, Judge Montgomery overruled the Commissioner’s objection, granted the claimant’s motion in part, denied the Commissioner’s motion, and remanded.
Lee Richard M., Jr.’s Social Security benefits claims were sent back to the administrative agency for further proceedings; the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment was denied.
What happened
In Lee Richard M., Jr. v. Nancy Berryhill, the claimant challenged a Social Security decision that found him disabled beginning February 1, 2014, but not before that date. The earlier decision had been sent back because the record did not adequately explain how his gout and chronic kidney problems affected his ability to work.
After the case returned to the administrative judge, the judge contacted the claimant’s treating specialists by fax, but did not successfully obtain the requested work-capacity assessments. The court found that the administrative judge did not take enough additional steps to develop the medical record and relied on much of the same evidence as before.
Judge Ann D. Montgomery overruled the Commissioner’s objection and adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The court granted the claimant’s motion for summary judgment in part, denied the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, and remanded the matter for further proceedings.
The detailed version
- Richard M. v. Berryhill · No. 0:17-cv-05125
- Ann Montgomery
- Mar. 7, 2019
Background
Lee Richard M., Jr. sought Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income based on applications filed in 2010. After an administrative law judge denied benefits, a federal district court in an earlier round of the case remanded the matter for further development of the record concerning the effects of his gout and chronic renal insufficiency on his residual functional capacity (RFC), meaning his ability to work despite his medical limitations.
The earlier remand order directed the administrative law judge to seek clarification from the treating rheumatologist and nephrologist, obtain RFC assessments from those specialists, reassess the claimant’s overall RFC, and provide the information to a vocational expert. On remand, the administrative law judge faxed physical work-capacity forms to the specialists. The rheumatologist returned the form without completing it, and the nephrologist did not respond even though the form was faxed three times. The administrative law judge did not try other methods of contacting the doctors and did not seek an RFC assessment from another medical expert.
The administrative law judge later issued a partially favorable decision. He found that the claimant was disabled beginning February 1, 2014, but not before then, and therefore found that the claimant was not entitled to Disability Insurance Benefits through December 31, 2012, the date he was last insured. The claimant sought judicial review, and both sides moved for summary judgment.
Court’s analysis
The magistrate judge recommended granting the claimant’s motion for summary judgment in part, denying the Commissioner’s motion, and remanding the case. The Commissioner objected, arguing that the administrative law judge had complied with the earlier remand order by contacting the treating physicians and that the existing record was sufficient to determine the claimant’s RFC.
Judge Ann D. Montgomery overruled the objection and adopted the recommendation. The court held that the administrative law judge failed to follow the earlier remand order because the fax attempts were unsuccessful, no other communication methods were tried, and no consultative examination or assessment from another medical expert was sought. The court also rejected the argument that the existing evidence was sufficient, explaining that the earlier court had already determined that the medical evidence did not adequately establish the effects of the claimant’s gout and chronic renal insufficiency on his ability to work.
Disposition
The court ordered that the Commissioner’s objection be overruled and the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation be adopted. It granted the claimant’s motion for summary judgment in part, denied the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, and remanded the matter under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with the recommendation.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.