Santiago v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Bennett Santiago sought judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision finding that he was not disabled under the Social Security Act from November 1, 2013, his alleged disability onset date, through August 11, 2017, the date of the administrative law judge’s decision. Santiago was represented by counsel.

The administrative law judge found that Santiago had severe impairments involving a torn left-knee meniscus and lumbar disc herniations at the L4-L5 and L5-S1 levels. The judge found that these impairments did not meet or equal the listed impairments used to presume disability. The judge determined that Santiago retained the residual functional capacity—the most he could do despite his limitations—to perform sedentary work with restrictions, including a sit/stand option allowing him to change positions as often as every 15 minutes. Relying on vocational-expert testimony, the judge found that jobs such as surveillance-system monitor, order clerk, and lens inserter existed in the national economy for someone with those limitations.

Issues and Analysis

Santiago challenged four aspects of the decision: whether the administrative law judge adequately developed the record after Santiago’s March 2016 spinal-fusion surgery; whether the judge properly discounted the April 2017 opinion of treating orthopedic surgeon Dr. Paul Brisson; whether the sit/stand restriction was supported by the evidence; whether the judge properly evaluated Santiago’s reported symptoms; and whether the judge was properly appointed under the Constitution’s Appointments Clause.

The court rejected the record-development argument. It concluded that the opinions of independent medical examiners were not stale because the record did not show an intervening event or significant deterioration requiring new medical evidence. The court also held that the administrative law judge gave adequate reasons for discounting Dr. Brisson’s opinion that Santiago was totally disabled. The judge considered the treatment history, the medical evidence, the consistency of the opinion with the rest of the record, and evidence of improvement in symptoms, strength, and sensation. The court stated that resolving conflicts in the medical evidence was the Commissioner’s responsibility.

The court also upheld the residual functional capacity assessment. It found that the sit/stand restriction was supported by Santiago’s testimony that he needed to move his leg after 15 to 20 minutes and that his back locked up when he sat too long, together with the medical evidence. The court rejected Santiago’s challenge to the evaluation of his symptoms because the administrative law judge compared his testimony with medical findings, treatment history, physical therapy, and daily activities. The court noted evidence that Santiago could care for personal needs, use public transportation, travel independently, and walk to buy groceries, as well as medical findings showing full strength, no gait disturbance, and improvement after surgery.

As to the Appointments Clause challenge, the court stated that Santiago did not raise it before the administrative law judge or the Appeals Council. Relying on decisions from the district and other courts, the court held that he had waived the challenge.

Disposition

The court found that the administrative law judge did not err in determining that Santiago’s impairments did not meet a listed impairment and that the residual functional capacity finding was supported by substantial evidence. Judge Katharine H. Parker denied Santiago’s motion and granted the Commissioner’s motion.