Herrera v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Nelson A. Herrera sought judicial review under the Social Security Act of the Commissioner’s decision that he was not disabled from March 14, 2017, his alleged disability-onset date, through October 2, 2019, the date of the administrative law judge’s decision. Herrera reported spine problems, degenerative disc disease, scoliosis, lumbar radiculopathy, back pain, leg numbness, and vision problems. He had previously worked as a forklift operator and window-machine operator.

The medical record included treatment from family nurse practitioner Alma Mesquita, surgeons Arden M. Kaisman and Andrew Merola, neurologist Teresella Gondolo, and consultative examiner Aurelio Salon. Herrera had spinal surgery in 2014 and a lumbar laminectomy in March 2017. Later magnetic-resonance imaging showed improvement, with no new disc herniations and no spinal stenosis at several levels. Nerve-conduction studies in 2017 and 2018 were normal. The record also contained conflicting evidence about Herrera’s pain, range of motion, gait, strength, and ability to sit, stand, walk, and lift.

Administrative Decision

The administrative law judge found that Herrera had a severe impairment involving degenerative disc disease with lumbar radiculopathy after the laminectomy. The judge concluded that the impairment did not meet or equal a listed impairment. The judge found that Herrera retained the residual functional capacity—the most he could still do despite his limitations—to perform light work with additional restrictions, including limited balancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, crawling, stair climbing, overhead reaching, and exposure to heights, moving mechanical parts, and vibration.

The administrative law judge found that Herrera could not return to his past work but could perform jobs such as housekeeper, laundry worker, and package sorter. The judge therefore concluded that Herrera was not disabled during the relevant period.

Arguments About the Record and Hearing Procedures

Herrera argued that the administrative law judge failed to fully develop the record by denying requests for subpoenas or interrogatories directed to Dr. Salon, Dr. Gondolo, and the vocational expert. He also argued that the treatment records from Dr. Gondolo were inaccurate and that the vocational expert’s information about available jobs was insufficient. Herrera claimed that these rulings denied him procedural due process, meaning a fair opportunity to be heard.

The court held that the administrative law judge did not abuse her discretion in denying the requested discovery. Dr. Salon’s report identified the movements Herrera had declined to perform, and further questioning would not have supplied meaningful information about tests that were not performed. Dr. Gondolo’s records were relevant because she had treated Herrera for nearly four years, and the administrative law judge had other evidence with which to evaluate those records. The court also found that Herrera’s counsel had fully questioned the vocational expert, including about the publicly available job databases and methodology used.

The court concluded that the administrative hearing was fair and that no further information was reasonably necessary to develop the record. It therefore rejected Herrera’s due-process argument.

Substantial Evidence Review

The court reviewed whether the administrative law judge applied the correct legal standards and whether substantial evidence supported the decision. Substantial evidence means relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

The court found that the administrative law judge properly considered the conflicting medical evidence. The judge explained why Mesquita’s opinions were unpersuasive, including that they lacked supporting explanations and conflicted with treatment notes, examinations, imaging, and other evidence. The judge also explained why Gondolo’s March 2019 opinion was unpersuasive because it conflicted with most of Gondolo’s treatment records, post-surgery imaging, and objective testing. The judge found Salon’s opinion only somewhat persuasive but relied on portions consistent with the broader record.

The court rejected Herrera’s arguments that the administrative law judge selected only favorable evidence or substituted personal opinions for medical opinions. It found substantial evidence supporting the residual-functional-capacity finding for 2017, 2018, and 2019, as well as the finding that jobs existed in significant numbers that Herrera could perform. The court also rejected Herrera’s separate challenge to the absence of a pushing-and-pulling restriction because the administrative law judge considered later evidence, including normal nerve-conduction studies, a normal cervical magnetic-resonance imaging report, and normal upper-extremity strength.

Disposition

The court held that the Commissioner’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and that there was no due-process violation. The court denied Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and granted Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.