Maldonado v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Marisol Maldonado sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying her applications for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. Maldonado alleged that her disability began on December 1, 2013. She had previously worked as a cake baker, dental assistant, home health care aide, and receptionist.

At the administrative hearing, Maldonado appeared without a lawyer. She described back pain, hand problems, migraines, diabetes, bipolar disorder, panic attacks, anxiety, and insomnia. She testified that she had difficulty sitting, standing, walking, handling dishes, reading, and leaving home. She also testified that she attended counseling and psychiatric appointments and took several medications.

The administrative law judge found that Maldonado had severe lumbar, hand, anxiety, and affective impairments, but that none met or equaled a listed impairment. The judge found that Maldonado retained the capacity for limited light work, including simple, routine, repetitive tasks and up to five percent off-task time beyond normal breaks. Although the judge found that Maldonado could not perform her past relevant work, the judge relied on vocational-expert testimony to conclude that she could perform jobs such as marker, photocopying machine operator, and router. The judge therefore found that Maldonado was not disabled. The Appeals Council later denied review and stated that additional evidence about Maldonado’s psychiatric hospitalization did not show a reasonable probability of changing the outcome.

Issues and analysis

Maldonado raised two grounds for reversal: that the administrative law judge failed to develop an adequate record and that the residual functional capacity assessment was not supported by substantial evidence. The court remanded based on the failure to develop the record and did not reach the residual-functional-capacity issue.

The court explained that an administrative law judge has a heightened duty to develop the record when a claimant is without a lawyer, and an even more heightened duty when the claimant alleges mental impairments. That duty includes obtaining relevant medical evidence and adequately questioning the claimant about symptoms and how those symptoms affect the ability to work.

The court found that the administrative law judge did not meet that duty. Although Maldonado repeatedly mentioned bipolar disorder, panic attacks, anxiety, difficulty going outside, trouble reading, counseling, psychiatric treatment, multiple medications, and insomnia, the judge asked almost no specific follow-up questions. The judge did not adequately ask about the location, duration, frequency, or intensity of the mental symptoms, whether they had worsened, or how effectively the medications controlled them. The court also stated that questioning about Maldonado’s physical symptoms was not as detailed as it could have been and directed further inquiry into those limitations.

The court additionally directed the agency to investigate the hospitalization record submitted to the Appeals Council. The hospitalization occurred only a few weeks after the administrative hearing and could bear on Maldonado’s condition during the relevant period. The court also identified apparent errors in the administrative law judge’s discussion of physical therapy because the record contained several references to Maldonado’s physical therapy treatment. The court directed the judge to reconsider those statements in light of the evidence.

Disposition

The court granted Maldonado’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. It remanded the matter for further proceedings consistent with the opinion and order. The remand required further development of the record; it did not itself award benefits or decide the residual-functional-capacity issue.