Vellone v. Saul

Background

Martha Vellone brought the action on behalf of her deceased ex-husband, Kenneth Vellone, under provisions of the Social Security Act allowing judicial review of a disability-benefits decision. On September 26, 2019, Administrative Law Judge Carlton found that Kenneth was not disabled and was therefore not eligible for disability benefits.

The court reviewed a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, which advised granting Vellone’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and remanding the case for further proceedings. The Commissioner objected. After reviewing the report, the parties’ submissions, and the administrative record, the court adopted the report in full.

Reasons for Remand

Sedentary-work finding

The administrative law judge found that Kenneth had the residual functional capacity—the most he could still do despite his limitations—to perform sedentary work. The court explained that sedentary work requires substantial sitting, so the administrative law judge needed evidence showing that Kenneth could remain seated for extended periods.

The only medical evidence directly addressing that ability was a report from Dr. Azeez, who had treated Kenneth for approximately fifteen years and opined that he could sit for no more than three hours per day. The administrative law judge instead relied on treatment notes from Doctors Chang and Solberg. Those notes described findings such as a generally normal gait, normal sensation, and generally normal strength, but contained little information about Kenneth’s ability to sit. The court held that the administrative law judge improperly substituted his own medical judgment for a physician’s opinion and that the sedentary-work finding was not supported by substantial evidence.

Discounting Dr. Azeez’s opinion

The court also held that the administrative law judge lacked substantial evidence for discounting Dr. Azeez’s opinion. The applicable regulations required consideration of the opinion’s supportability and consistency, as well as the doctor’s relationship with the claimant.

The administrative law judge relied on Kenneth’s ability to walk and his generally normal gait to find Dr. Azeez’s opinion inconsistent with the rest of the record. The court concluded that those observations did not establish that Kenneth could sit for extended periods. The court also found that the opinion was supported by at least some objective medical evidence, including observations of back and hip pain and referenced laboratory and diagnostic testing. Finally, the administrative law judge did not address Dr. Azeez’s approximately fifteen-year treatment relationship with Kenneth.

Discounting Kenneth’s reports of pain

The court further held that the administrative law judge did not adequately support his decision to discount Kenneth’s reports of severe pain. The administrative law judge cited findings including a normal gait, the ability to heel-walk, toe-walk, and tandem-walk, generally full lower-extremity strength, and one observation that Kenneth was not in acute distress.

The court determined that most of these findings did not directly contradict Kenneth’s reports of severe pain. The single observation that he was not in acute distress was also insufficient by itself, particularly in light of his repeated reports of severe pain and medical evidence describing severe degenerative disc disease and unsuccessful treatments.

Failure to develop the record

The court held that obvious gaps remained in the administrative record, especially concerning medical evidence about Kenneth’s ability to stay seated for extended periods. Although the court recognized the Commissioner’s efforts to obtain records from Dr. Azeez, it concluded that the administrative law judge still had a duty to obtain additional evidence before deciding Kenneth’s residual functional capacity.

Disposition

Judge Abrams adopted the Report and Recommendation in full. The court granted Vellone’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, denied the Commissioner’s motion, and ordered the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion and the report. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motions and close the case.