Martinez v. Berryhill

Background

Gregory Martinez sought judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner’s denial of his application for Disability Insurance Benefits for the period from September 18, 1984, through October 31, 1996. He alleged disability following a bicycle accident in 1984 that injured his lower back and right knee. The administrative law judge found that Martinez had severe right-knee and lumbar-spine impairments and a residual functional capacity for sedentary work with additional restrictions, including occasional climbing, stooping, and crouching; no kneeling, balancing, or crawling; and use of a cane when walking.

The administrative law judge found that Martinez could not perform his past work but could perform other jobs, including dowel inspector, dial marker, and document preparer. That conclusion relied on testimony from vocational expert Helene J. Feldman. Feldman acknowledged that she could not state with certainty how many of those jobs existed in the 1980s. She provided current figures instead, and later explained that some figures represented broad groups of occupations containing jobs at exertional levels higher than sedentary work. She did not provide accurate numbers for the individual jobs that a person with Martinez’s restrictions could perform.

Court’s Analysis

The parties agreed that the administrative law judge made an error at step five of the disability analysis. At that step, the Commissioner must show that a significant number of jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant can perform given the claimant’s limitations, age, education, and work experience. The court held that the vocational expert’s testimony did not provide substantial evidence for that requirement because the figures came from the wrong time period and included broader occupational groups rather than reliable numbers for suitable individual jobs.

The court declined to remand solely for calculation and payment of benefits. It explained that such a remand is appropriate when the record persuasively establishes disability and further evidence would serve no purpose. Here, the court found a basis to conclude that a more complete record might support the Commissioner’s decision: the Commissioner could potentially show on remand that at least some of the identified jobs existed in significant numbers during the relevant period. The court also noted that the step-five error was the only error requiring correction in the current proceeding.

Disposition

Judge Barbara Moses granted the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, granted Martinez’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in part and denied it in part, and remanded the action for further proceedings. The remand was limited to proceedings consistent with the opinion, including the step-five issue. Proceedings before the administrative law judge had to be completed within 120 days of the opinion. If the administrative law judge denied benefits, the Commissioner had to issue a final decision within 60 days after Martinez appealed that decision. The opinion stated that if those deadlines were not met, benefits owed based on the alleged onset date would have to be calculated immediately.