Starr v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Background

Daniel Starr sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of his claim for Disability Insurance Benefits. Starr alleged that he became unable to work after a June 2016 work injury involving his lower back, hip, leg, and foot. The administrative law judge found severe impairments including obesity, peripheral artery disease, diabetes, diabetic foot ulcers, diabetic neuropathy, a right ankle condition, and degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine.

The administrative law judge found that Starr could perform a range of sedentary work. The residual functional capacity finding allowed him to walk or stand for up to two hours per day, required a cane when walking, limited several activities, and required him to elevate his foot as needed with a footstool. The administrative law judge found that Starr could not perform his past work but could perform other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy. The Appeals Council declined review, and Starr filed this case.

Arguments and Analysis

Starr argued that the administrative law judge failed to develop the medical record and that the residual functional capacity finding was not supported by substantial evidence, particularly concerning his ability to walk, stand, and elevate his foot. The court rejected the record-development argument. It concluded that the record did not contain an obvious gap preventing evaluation of Starr’s limitations, and that the administrative law judge was not required to contact doctors again merely because their opinions were considered unsupported or inconsistent. The court also concluded that obtaining testimony from a medical expert was discretionary and was not required on this record.

The court upheld the administrative law judge’s treatment of Starr’s walking and standing limitations. It concluded that substantial evidence supported the finding that Starr could walk or stand for up to two hours per day with a cane and foot elevation. The court also noted that, even if Starr could not stand or walk at all, vocational-expert testimony identified two jobs that would remain available under that limitation. The court found no error in the administrative law judge’s consideration of medical opinions, including opinions concerning Starr’s foot ulcers and later treatment.

The court identified one unsupported part of the residual functional capacity finding: the restriction that Starr could work if his foot were elevated only to footstool height. The administrative law judge had rejected an opinion requiring chest-high elevation but had not explained why footstool-level elevation was the appropriate limit. The court concluded that the medical opinion accepted by the administrative law judge did not establish the required elevation height and that the reason for selecting footstool height was not otherwise apparent from the record.

Disposition

Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein granted Starr’s motion to remand and denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings. The case was remanded for further proceedings. On remand, the administrative law judge must either explain, with evidentiary support, the footstool-level elevation limitation or adjust the residual functional capacity finding to conform to the evidence. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment.