Gonzalez v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Joseph Gonzalez sought review under the Social Security Act of an administrative law judge’s June 14, 2018 decision denying his applications for disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income. The administrative law judge found that Gonzalez had severe schizophrenia with schizoaffective disorder, mood disorder, personality disorder, and asthma, but retained the capacity to perform work at all exertional levels with restrictions. Those restrictions included avoiding more than occasional exposure to respiratory irritants; performing simple, repetitive tasks in a routine setting with few changes; having no public contact; and having only occasional contact with coworkers and supervisors. The administrative law judge concluded that Gonzalez could not perform his past work but could perform jobs such as presser, dishwasher, and hand packager.

Parties’ arguments

Gonzalez argued that the residual functional capacity finding—the agency’s assessment of what work he could still perform—was not supported by substantial evidence. He focused on consulting psychologist Ruby Phillips’s opinion that he had moderate limitations in several areas and a marked limitation in dealing appropriately with stress. Gonzalez argued that the administrative law judge gave the opinion great weight but did not explain how the marked stress limitation was reflected in the residual functional capacity or in the question posed to the vocational expert.

Gonzalez also challenged the appointment of the administrative law judge under the Constitution’s Appointments Clause and requested a remand to a different administrative law judge. The Commissioner argued that substantial evidence supported the decision, that the work restrictions adequately addressed stress, and that Gonzalez had forfeited the appointment challenge by not raising it during the agency proceedings.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the administrative law judge failed to explain why he rejected or failed to incorporate Phillips’s marked stress limitation while giving great weight to her opinion. More broadly, the court held that the administrative law judge erred by relying on Phillips’s and state-agency psychologist L. Blackwell’s opinions to assess Gonzalez’s mental disorders and residual functional capacity. The court distinguished psychologists from psychiatrists and concluded that, under the Social Security regulations applicable to the period at issue, only a psychiatrist—not a psychologist—was competent to diagnose and give opinions about Gonzalez’s mental disorders. Because the administrative law judge relied on those opinions, the residual functional capacity finding was not supported by substantial evidence and was legally erroneous.

The court stated that this practice of relying on psychologists’ psychiatric evaluations, diagnoses, and examination findings to support residual functional capacity assessments lacked a basis in and conflicted with the agency’s regulations.

Appointment challenge and disposition

The court did not decide whether Gonzalez had forfeited his Appointments Clause challenge because it was remanding on the disability-claim merits. It also concluded that the remedy discussed in Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission— a hearing before a new judge for a successful appointment challenger—was not available here because Gonzalez’s remand was based on the disability claim, not on a successful appointment challenge.

Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox granted the plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and remanded the matter for rehearing. The court denied the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.