Tutolo v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:18-cv-10538
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 17
In Tutolo v. Commissioner, Judge Ramos granted judgment on the pleadings and sent Tutolo’s disability-benefits case back for further proceedings.
Denise D. Tutolo and the Social Security Commissioner; the case returns to the administrative law judge for further proceedings concerning Tutolo’s eligibility for benefits before December 15, 2015.
What happened
In Tutolo v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Denise D. Tutolo challenged the denial of disability insurance benefits for the period before December 15, 2015. A magistrate judge recommended sending the case back because the administrative law judge was not properly appointed, but the Commissioner objected.
The court rejected that recommendation’s appointment-based reasoning because Tutolo had not raised the appointment challenge during the administrative proceedings. The court nevertheless found other problems requiring a new review, including the administrative law judge’s failure to properly evaluate Tutolo’s anxiety, treating-physician evidence, some limits identified by a consulting doctor, and carpal tunnel syndrome.
Judge Edgardo Ramos adopted the recommendation in part and rejected it in part, granted Tutolo’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, and remanded the case to the Social Security Commissioner for further proceedings.
The detailed version
- Tutolo v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · No. 1:18-cv-10538
- Edgardo Ramos
- Mar. 31, 2020
Background
Denise D. Tutolo sought disability insurance benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), challenging the Commissioner’s July 17, 2018 decision that she was not disabled before December 15, 2015. The administrative law judge found that Tutolo had several severe physical impairments, including cervical spine disease and a left-knee condition, but found no severe mental impairment. The administrative law judge determined that Tutolo could perform a restricted range of light work, could not return to her past work, but could perform other jobs in the national economy.
Tutolo had previously obtained remands in earlier rounds of the case. After a third administrative hearing, the administrative law judge again denied benefits for the period before December 15, 2015. Tutolo moved for judgment on the pleadings, and the Commissioner did not file a substantive response, instead resting on the administrative record.
Report and Recommendation and Appointment Challenge
A magistrate judge recommended remanding the case based solely on Tutolo’s argument that the administrative law judge had not been properly appointed under the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. The Commissioner timely objected. Judge Ramos reviewed that recommendation and found clear error in its appointment-based reasoning.
Tutolo acknowledged that she had not raised the appointment challenge during the administrative proceedings. Judge Ramos concluded that the challenge could not support a remand because the applicable authorities generally required such a challenge to be raised before the administrative law judge or the Appeals Council. The court also concluded that Social Security Ruling 19-1p referred to timely administrative challenges and did not change that result.
Other Grounds for Remand
The court then considered Tutolo’s remaining arguments despite the Commissioner’s lack of a substantive defense. First, the court held that the administrative law judge had not followed the required procedure for evaluating mental impairments. Although the administrative law judge cited psychological evidence and found no severe mental impairment, the decision did not show the required assessment of functional limitations in areas such as understanding and remembering information, interacting with others, concentrating, and managing oneself. The court held that this error required remand.
Second, the court found that the administrative law judge needed to reconsider the medical evidence. The Appeals Council had previously determined that the administrative law judge inadequately discounted the treatment notes of Tutolo’s treating orthopedist, Dr. Blanco. Judge Ramos directed the administrative law judge to consider those notes more fully and, if Dr. Blanco’s opinion was not given controlling weight, to apply the regulatory factors for deciding what weight it should receive.
The court also held that the administrative law judge failed to address all of the limitations described by consultative examiner Dr. Pelczar-Wissner. The court found substantial evidence supporting the rejection of the examiner’s lifting and standing limitations, based on Tutolo’s testimony about her cashier work, but said the administrative law judge still had to explain how she treated the examiner’s other postural, hand-use, and reaching limitations.
Third, the court found that the administrative law judge did not make specific findings about Tutolo’s carpal tunnel syndrome and its effect on her residual functional capacity, meaning the most work she could still perform despite her limitations. The administrative law judge had limited Tutolo to frequent rather than constant handling and fingering, but had not made the necessary findings about her ability to feel or use her hands for fine or gross manipulation.
Disposition
Judge Ramos adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in part and rejected it in part. The court granted Tutolo’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and remanded the case to the Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings.
Read the full 17-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.