Maldonado v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Elizabeth Maldonado, proceeding without a lawyer on behalf of her child, N.L.M.B. (N.L.), appealed the denial of N.L.’s application for supplemental security income benefits. The administrative law judge (ALJ) found that N.L. had not engaged in substantial gainful activity and had three severe impairments: asthma, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and a tic disorder. The ALJ nevertheless found that the impairments did not meet, medically equal, or functionally equal the severity of an impairment listed in the Social Security regulations.

The ALJ issued the decision in October 2018. By then, the Social Security Administration had revised the listings for respiratory and mental-health disorders. The revised rules changed the asthma criteria and broadened the mental-health listing, including by expressly requiring tic disorders to be analyzed under that listing. The ALJ instead used the earlier versions of the listings.

Proceedings and Arguments

The Appeals Council declined to review the ALJ’s decision. In this court, the Commissioner moved for judgment on the pleadings, which asks the court to decide the case based on the administrative record and the parties’ written submissions. A magistrate judge recommended denying that motion and remanding the case because the ALJ had used outdated listings. She also recommended that the agency consider an individualized education program (IEP) submitted to the Appeals Council, along with any other unexamined evidence of N.L.’s impairments.

The Commissioner acknowledged that the ALJ appeared to have used the prior listings but argued that the error was harmless because substantial evidence still supported the denial. The Commissioner also argued that the newer listings were sufficiently similar to the criteria the ALJ had considered. The Commissioner did not object to the recommendation that the agency consider the IEP and additional evidence on remand.

Court’s Analysis

Judge Ramos reviewed the challenged portions of the magistrate judge’s report for clear error because the Commissioner repeated its earlier arguments rather than presenting new, specific objections. The court agreed that the ALJ’s findings that N.L. had not engaged in substantial gainful activity and had three severe impairments were supported by substantial evidence.

The court also agreed that the ALJ committed a legal error by applying the wrong versions of the listings. That error affected both the analysis of whether N.L.’s impairments met or medically equaled a listed impairment and the later analysis of whether they functionally equaled one. The court rejected the Commissioner’s harmless-error argument because the revised listings were broader in relevant respects, including their treatment of tic disorders. The court noted that the ALJ might reach the same conclusion after applying the correct rules, but N.L. was entitled to have that determination made under the proper standards in the first instance.

Disposition

The court adopted the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation in full. It denied the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, vacated the Commissioner’s decision denying N.L.’s application for supplemental security income benefits, and remanded the action to the Commissioner for further proceedings. On remand, the Commissioner was instructed to consider N.L.’s IEP and any additional evidence of N.L.’s impairments.