Santiago v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Ricardo Morales Santiago applied for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income in January 2016. He alleged disability beginning October 27, 2015, based on anxiety, depression, pain in both legs, and shortness of breath following triple-bypass heart surgery.

After a December 2017 hearing, Administrative Law Judge Elias Feuer found that Santiago was not disabled from August 25, 2015, through January 2, 2018, but was disabled beginning January 2, 2018. The administrative law judge found that the effects of Santiago’s heart surgery limited him to light work and that he became disabled under the Medical-Vocational Guidelines when he turned 55. The administrative law judge treated the effects of the heart surgery as a severe impairment but found that Santiago’s depression and lower-back pain were not severe impairments. The resulting decision awarded benefits beginning in January 2018 but denied benefits for the earlier period at issue.

Arguments and Report and Recommendation

Santiago sought review under the Social Security Act and moved for judgment on the pleadings, a procedure in which the court decides the case based on the existing administrative record and the parties’ written submissions. He argued that the administrative law judge improperly evaluated his depression and back pain, failed to apply the treating physician rule, did not consider medication side effects or obesity, failed to account for non-severe impairments when determining his residual functional capacity, reached a residual-functional-capacity finding unsupported by substantial evidence, and applied the wrong Medical-Vocational Guidelines rule.

The Commissioner opposed Santiago’s motion and filed a cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Commissioner argued that substantial evidence supported the administrative law judge’s findings, that the treating physician rule had been applied, that the residual functional capacity adequately accounted for Santiago’s impairments and obesity, and that the correct Guidelines rule had been used.

Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox recommended granting Santiago’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, remanding the matter to the Commissioner, and denying the Commissioner’s cross-motion. The Report stated that the administrative law judge had failed to apply the treating physician rule and had overlooked evidence of documented back pain, extensive psychiatric treatment records, and medications.

District Court’s Review

Neither party objected to the Report within the required period. The court explained that a party’s failure to object generally waives the right to object and to obtain appellate review. The court nevertheless reviewed the Report for clear error and found none. It concluded that the Report’s reasoning was supported by the facts and law and adopted the Report in its entirety.

Disposition

The matter was remanded to the Commissioner. The Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was denied. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the pending motions, adjourn the remaining dates, and close the case.