Rosado v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Zaida I. Rosado, proceeding without a lawyer, sought review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her applications for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. She alleged that back and neck injuries, herniated discs, nerve problems, asthma, depression, and anxiety prevented her from working. The administrative law judge denied benefits for the period beginning June 25, 2011, and found that Rosado could perform the full range of light work, with occasional stooping and no concentrated exposure to respiratory irritants. The administrative law judge also found no severe mental impairment and concluded that Rosado could perform past work as a case aide, food aide, and hairdresser.

The Commissioner moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the administrative law judge’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and applied the correct legal standards. Rosado opposed the motion in a letter, which she submitted in Spanish and which the agency translated.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that the administrative law judge’s evaluation of Rosado’s mental impairments was not supported by substantial evidence. The administrative law judge found no more than mild limitations in the areas of interacting with others, concentrating, and adapting or managing herself. But the court found that the decision took Rosado’s testimony about her friendships and daily activities out of context and failed to address relevant opinions from psychologist Dr. Stanley Goldstein and consultative examiner Dr. Dennis Noia. Dr. Goldstein described moderate limitations in several work-related areas and stated that Rosado’s psychological impairments frequently interfered with daily activities. Dr. Noia also found moderate limitations in dealing with stress and stated that Rosado’s psychiatric problems might significantly interfere with daily functioning.

The court also held that the physical residual functional capacity finding was unsupported. A residual functional capacity is the level of work a person can perform despite medical limitations. The court found that the administrative law judge improperly discounted treating physician Dr. Alexander Gapay’s opinions, relied too heavily on a one-time consultative examination, failed to consider physical therapist George Giovannone’s evidence, and selectively relied on records showing a normal gait while disregarding records showing abnormal gait, positive straight-leg-raise tests, limited movement, pain, spasms, and weakness. The court also found that the consultative examiner’s opinion about walking and lifting did not support the administrative law judge’s conclusion that Rosado could perform light work.

The court further held that the administrative law judge failed to develop the record. Although the record contained Dr. Gapay’s older functional assessments, it did not contain updated assessments from treating sources about Rosado’s physical ability to perform work-related activities during the relevant period. The court described this absence as an obvious gap that the administrative law judge was required to address.

The court did not consider Rosado’s newly reported diagnoses of diabetes and breast cancer as evidence supporting the claim because those diagnoses were not in the administrative record and Rosado had not shown the required materiality and good cause for submitting new evidence at that stage. The court stated that she could submit such evidence to the Commissioner on remand.

Disposition

Judge Paul E. Davison denied the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and remanded the case for further administrative proceedings. The court directed the Clerk to terminate the pending motion and close the case.