Obremski v. Commissioner of Social Security
- James Cott
- 1:20-cv-03902
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 43
In Obremski v. Kijakazi, Judge Cott remanded the disability-benefits denial because the administrative law judge mishandled medical opinions and record development.
Michael Obremski received a remand of the denial of his disability benefits claim for further administrative proceedings. The Social Security Administration must reconsider the medical evidence, develop the record, reassess his work capacity, and reevaluate his symptom statements.
What happened
In Obremski v. Kijakazi, Michael Obremski challenged the Social Security Administration’s denial of disability insurance and supplemental security income benefits. The administrative law judge found that he could perform sedentary work with restrictions and identified jobs he could do.
The court found that the administrative law judge did not properly evaluate treating vascular surgeon Dr. Rajeev Dayal’s opinions. The judge failed to adequately consider the length and frequency of treatment, supporting evidence, and Dr. Dayal’s specialization, and did not give good reasons for discounting his opinions. The judge also relied improperly on a consultative examiner who had not reviewed Obremski’s prior records.
Judge Cott granted Obremski’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The administrative law judge must reassess the medical opinions, develop the record, reconsider Obremski’s residual functional capacity, and reevaluate his statements about his symptoms.
The detailed version
- Obremski v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:20-cv-03902
- James Cott
- July 27, 2021
Background
Michael Obremski sought judicial review of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying his applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Obremski alleged that a right-hand artery blockage, rheumatoid arthritis, asthma, and related symptoms prevented him from working beginning November 4, 2016.
Administrative Law Judge Michelle Allen found that Obremski had severe impairments consisting of right-hand ischemia, rheumatoid arthritis, and asthma. She determined that he could perform sedentary work with restrictions, including frequent handling and fingering with both hands, limits on climbing and kneeling, and no exposure to dust, fumes, pulmonary irritants, or extreme cold. At the final step of the disability analysis, she found that jobs such as order clerk, document preparer, and charge-account clerk existed in significant numbers and concluded that Obremski was not disabled.
The parties filed cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings. Obremski argued that the administrative law judge improperly evaluated the medical opinions and his statements about his symptoms. The Commissioner argued that the decision was supported by substantial evidence and that the medical opinions and symptom testimony were properly evaluated.
Court’s analysis
The court concluded that the administrative law judge did not properly apply the treating-physician rule to the opinions of Rajeev Dayal, a vascular surgeon who treated Obremski after the artery blockage and surgery. When an administrative law judge gives a treating physician’s opinion less than controlling weight, the judge must consider factors including the treatment relationship’s length and frequency, the evidence supporting the opinion, its consistency with the rest of the record, and the physician’s specialization.
The court found that the administrative law judge failed to explicitly consider three of those factors: the length, frequency, nature, and extent of Dr. Dayal’s treatment; the evidence supporting his opinions; and his specialization as a vascular surgeon. The court also found that the administrative law judge did not adequately account for evidence from other physicians and from Obremski that supported Dr. Dayal’s assessment of severe right-hand limitations.
The court agreed that the administrative law judge could give little weight to Dr. Dayal’s statement that Obremski was unable to work because the ultimate disability determination belongs to the Commissioner. But that did not eliminate the obligation to explain why the physician’s other findings were not credited. The court also rejected the lack of a function-by-function analysis as sufficient by itself to disregard Dr. Dayal’s findings; the administrative law judge should have sought clarification instead.
The court separately found that the administrative law judge improperly relied on the opinion of Iqbal Teli, a one-time consultative examiner who had not reviewed Obremski’s medical records or diagnostic tests and had not considered all of his impairments. The administrative law judge also failed to consider the limited nature of that examination and the physicians’ specializations. These errors were not harmless because the vocational expert testified that a person who could rarely use the dominant hand could not perform the identified jobs.
The court did not decide Obremski’s separate challenge to the evaluation of his subjective statements because the other errors already required a remand. It directed that those statements be reconsidered after the medical opinions and record were properly addressed.
Disposition and remand instructions
The court granted Obremski’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 must:
- Explicitly consider all relevant treating-physician factors when deciding how much weight to give Dr. Dayal’s opinions.
- Develop the record by recontacting Dr. Teli for a function-by-function assessment and review of prior medical records.
- Reassess Obremski’s residual functional capacity in light of the properly evaluated medical opinions.
- Reevaluate Obremski’s credibility and statements about his symptoms using an accurate account of his treatment and the further-developed record.
The clerk was directed to enter judgment for Obremski.
Read the full 43-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.