Brazil v. Berryhill
- Robert Lehrburger
- 1:19-cv-07041
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 19
In Brazil v. Berryhill, Judge Lehrburger granted Brazil’s motion, denied the Commissioner’s motion, and remanded the disability-benefits case for more evidence.
John C. Brazil and the Social Security Administration; the case requires further proceedings on Brazil’s disability-benefits claim.
What happened
John C. Brazil asked the court to review the Social Security Administration’s decision denying him disability insurance benefits. He said his detached retina, vision problems, and carpal tunnel syndrome prevented him from working. The administrative law judge found that he had severe impairments but could still perform medium work with restrictions and could do other jobs.
The court did not decide whether Brazil was disabled. It found that the administrative law judge had not adequately developed the evidence because the record lacked opinions from Brazil’s treating doctors about how his vision problems and carpal tunnel syndrome limited his ability to work. The court also left Brazil’s other arguments for the agency to consider after obtaining more evidence.
Judge Robert W. Lehrburger granted Brazil’s motion for summary judgment, denied the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
The detailed version
- Brazil v. Berryhill · No. 1:19-cv-07041
- Robert Lehrburger
- Sept. 10, 2020
Background
John C. Brazil sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying his application for disability insurance benefits. Brazil alleged that he became unable to work on December 17, 2015, because of a detached retina and related visual impairments. The record also concerned right carpal tunnel syndrome and other hand impairments.
After a hearing, Administrative Law Judge Miriam L. Shire found that Brazil had severe impairments, including recurrent retinal detachment of the left eye, bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, and trigger-thumb and hand conditions. She determined that Brazil could perform medium work, subject to restrictions involving vision, electronic screens, heights, dangerous machinery, driving, weather exposure, and frequent handling, fingering, and feeling. She found that he could not return to his past work for the Metropolitan Transit Authority but could perform other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy.
Brazil moved for summary judgment under Rule 56(a), arguing that the administrative law judge had overlooked or mischaracterized evidence concerning his lifting, hand use, daily activities, and visual limitations. The Commissioner opposed Brazil’s motion and sought judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), arguing that the administrative decision was supported by substantial evidence.
Issue and Standard of Review
The court reviewed whether the Commissioner applied the correct legal standards and whether substantial evidence supported the decision. Substantial evidence means relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Before conducting that review, however, the court had to determine whether the administrative law judge fully developed the administrative record.
In Social Security proceedings, the administrative law judge has an affirmative duty to investigate the facts and develop arguments both for and against granting benefits. That duty includes making reasonable efforts to obtain medical reports from treating physicians, including information about what a claimant can still do despite the claimed impairments.
Analysis
The court concluded that the record was incomplete. Brazil had received extensive treatment from Dr. Anton Orlin for his visual impairments and from Dr. Richard Magill for his carpal tunnel syndrome. The record contained treatment notes and other raw medical data from those physicians, but no opinion from either doctor addressing the work-related limitations caused by Brazil’s impairments.
The only medical opinions in the record came from a state-agency medical consultant and Dr. Nancy Blace, a consultative examiner. Those opinions addressed Brazil’s visual limitations but did not address his carpal tunnel syndrome. The court noted that the administrative law judge gave little weight to the state-agency consultant’s opinion and good weight to Dr. Blace’s opinion, yet the decision did not explain any effort to obtain opinions from Brazil’s treating physicians or otherwise fill the evidentiary gap.
The court recognized that an administrative law judge does not always have to obtain a treating physician’s formal opinion. But, under the specific circumstances here, the record was not sufficiently complete to permit an informed determination of Brazil’s residual functional capacity, meaning his ability to perform sustained work despite his impairments. The court therefore held that the administrative law judge should have attempted to obtain medical-source opinions from Dr. Orlin and Dr. Magill concerning the limiting effects of Brazil’s visual impairments and carpal tunnel syndrome after December 17, 2015.
Because the case was being remanded for further development of the record, the court did not separately decide Brazil’s arguments about his subjective symptoms, his ability to care for himself, or the treatment of his visual impairments in the residual-functional-capacity analysis. The Commissioner would be required to reassess those matters in light of the new evidence.
Disposition
Pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), Judge Robert W. Lehrburger denied the Commissioner’s motion, granted Brazil’s motion, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. The remand did not itself award Brazil disability benefits.
Read the full 19-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.