Birdex v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Cecilia Birdex, proceeding without a lawyer, sought review under § 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), of the Commissioner’s final decision denying her application for Disability Insurance Benefits. Birdex alleged disability beginning January 1, 2005, based on neuropathy, fatigue, glaucoma, and low testosterone. The opinion states that much of the supporting medical evidence concerned her vision.

Birdex had a history of glaucoma, including advanced or severe glaucoma and a 2008 surgery for open-angle glaucoma. Consultative examinations in 2015 and 2017 documented glaucoma and visual-field limitations. One doctor, Dr. Aguiar, identified restrictions involving driving, workplace hazards, detecting people and vehicles, reading, handling documents, and distinguishing small objects.

Administrative proceedings

The administrative law judge denied benefits. The administrative law judge found that Birdex last met the non-blind insured-status requirement on December 31, 1995. The administrative law judge also found that Birdex was not statutorily blind and therefore was not disabled during a period when she met the insured-status requirements for benefits.

The Commissioner moved for judgment on the pleadings, which is a request for the court to decide the case based on the pleadings and the administrative record. Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn issued a report and recommendation advising that the motion be granted. Birdex did not file a timely opposition brief, but she later submitted a letter arguing that her medical records showed legal blindness beginning in 2005 or 2006. The court treated that letter as an objection to the recommendation.

Court’s analysis

The court reviewed the portion of the recommendation addressing Birdex’s claimed blindness independently because she objected to it, and reviewed the remainder for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake in the recommendation.

The court rejected Birdex’s objection. It said the objection was vague because it did not identify which definition of legal blindness Birdex meant or specify the medical records supporting her position. The court further held that the record contained no evidence establishing blindness under the Social Security Act. Birdex’s physicians had not found that she met the Act’s blindness standard, and the two experts who gave opinions on that issue, Dr. Mark Farber and Dr. Hema Sugumaran, concluded that she did not meet either statutory blindness criterion. The court noted that Dr. Sugumaran, an ophthalmologist, used the correct visual-field measurement in reaching that conclusion.

The court also agreed with Judge Netburn that the administrative law judge had adequately developed the record. Although the record did not contain post-2008 notes from Birdex’s ophthalmologic surgeon, the court found that appropriate efforts had been made to obtain additional medical information.

Disposition

Judge Gardephe adopted Judge Netburn’s report and recommendation in its entirety and granted the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion and close the case.