Ortiz v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Ruth Ortiz challenged the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying her disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act and supplemental security income under Title XVI. Ortiz alleged that she became unable to work because of diabetes, asthma, high blood pressure, and leg problems. She had been represented by counsel at her administrative hearings.

Administrative Law Judge Seth Grossman found that Ortiz had severe impairments including diabetes, asthma, high blood pressure, and osteoarthritis in both knees. He found that she could perform the full range of light work, with a restriction against exposure to dust, chemicals, and other environmental pollutants. He also found that she needed a cane only when walking outside or on uneven terrain and could perform her past work as an eyewear sales attendant. The Appeals Council denied review.

Ortiz’s Arguments

Ortiz moved for judgment on the pleadings, asking the court to rule in her favor based on the administrative record. She argued that the administrative judge’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence because the environmental restrictions were not presented to the vocational expert. She also argued that the administrative judge did not adequately explain why he gave limited weight to the opinions of Dr. Orodio and Dr. Meisel. In the alternative, she sought a remand for further administrative proceedings, arguing that the administrative judge had not been properly appointed under the Constitution’s Appointments Clause.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that the administrative judge did not need to present the environmental restrictions to the vocational expert. The court explained that Ortiz’s asthma-related restrictions did not significantly reduce her ability to perform light work beyond the effects of her physical limitations. The court therefore concluded that the administrative judge could rely on the applicable Social Security rules without additional vocational-expert testimony.

The court also upheld the treatment of the medical opinions. It agreed that Dr. Orodio’s opinions were inconsistent with objective medical evidence, other medical opinions, and Ortiz’s inconsistent use of a cane. The court further agreed that Dr. Meisel’s opinion deserved only some weight because he examined Ortiz once, his findings were not adequately supported by the record, and his conclusions conflicted with other evidence, including evidence that Ortiz had recently lifted heavy boxes.

Finally, the court held that Ortiz had waived her Appointments Clause challenge by failing to raise it during the administrative process. The court relied on decisions requiring such a challenge to be made before the administrative judge or the Appeals Council.

Disposition

The court denied Ortiz’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, granted the Commissioner’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings, and affirmed the Commissioner’s decision. Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. signed the order on March 10, 2020.