Rodriguez v. Saul

Background

Valerio Rodriguez sought review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying his application for disability insurance benefits. Rodriguez alleged disability based on back and left ankle impairments. The administrative law judge found that he had severe lumbar degenerative disc disease after fusion surgery, left shoulder arthropathy, cervical degenerative disc disease, and obesity, but concluded that he was not disabled.

The administrative law judge found that Rodriguez could perform sedentary work with restrictions, including a sit-stand option every 20 minutes, limits on use of his upper extremities, and restrictions involving climbing, crawling, environmental hazards, and neck movement. At the final step of the disability analysis, the administrative law judge relied on vocational expert testimony identifying election clerk and surveillance-system-monitor jobs that Rodriguez could perform.

Rodriguez’s Arguments

Rodriguez argued that the administrative law judge improperly failed to consider his left Achilles or ankle impairment, incorrectly determined that his impairments did not meet Listing 1.04A for certain spinal disorders, and improperly relied on the vocational expert’s job numbers. The Commissioner argued that the administrative law judge’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and that the vocational testimony was reliable.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that the administrative law judge failed to consider Rodriguez’s left ankle impairment at step two or anywhere else in the disability analysis. The court explained that even if the impairment were found non-severe, the administrative law judge still had to consider its effects when determining Rodriguez’s residual functional capacity, meaning his remaining ability to work despite his impairments. Because the decision did not show that the ankle impairment was considered, the error was not harmless.

The court also held that the administrative law judge improperly evaluated Listing 1.04A. The administrative law judge stated that there was no evidence of nerve-root compression or sensory or reflex loss. But the record included a medical finding of an impinged right L5 nerve root, evidence of radiating pain and numbness, nearly absent knee and left Achilles reflexes, limited spinal movement, and evidence of muscle weakness. The court noted conflicting evidence about straight-leg-raise tests and stated that the administrative law judge—not the court—had to evaluate and reconcile that evidence.

The court rejected Rodriguez’s challenge to the vocational expert’s testimony. It concluded that Rodriguez had not shown that the election-clerk jobs identified by the expert were necessarily temporary or seasonal, and he had not shown that surveillance-system-monitor jobs were improperly combined with gambling-monitor jobs. The court therefore did not order a remand on that issue.

Disposition

Judge James L. Cott granted Rodriguez’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and remanded the case to the administrative law judge under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The administrative law judge was directed to determine whether Rodriguez’s left ankle impairment was severe and to consider it throughout the remaining steps, reevaluate Listing 1.04A, and reassess the conflicting straight-leg-raise evidence. The court directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in Rodriguez’s favor and close the two motion docket entries.