Madigan v. Berryhill

Background

Robert D. Madigan sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying his application for disability insurance benefits. He alleged disability beginning December 13, 2011, based on left-ear hearing loss and ringing, difficulty locating sounds and understanding speech, memory and concentration problems, anxiety, depression, sleep difficulty, and fatigue. His date last insured was September 30, 2015, so he had to establish disability by that date.

After an earlier administrative decision was vacated and the matter was returned for further proceedings, Administrative Law Judge Dennis G. Katz held a second hearing and found that Madigan was not disabled. The judge found severe impairments involving left-ear sensorineural hearing loss, an affective disorder, and an anxiety disorder. He determined that Madigan could perform work at all exertional levels, subject to limits involving loud noise, sound direction, face-to-face communication, and basic, simple, repetitive, routine, unskilled tasks. The judge found that Madigan could not perform his past relevant work but could perform several unskilled jobs identified by a vocational expert.

Madigan moved for judgment on the pleadings, asking the court to reverse the agency’s decision and remand solely for calculation of benefits. The Commissioner moved to remand for further administrative proceedings. The opinion also discusses the Supreme Court’s decision in Carr v. Saul and Madigan’s decision not to request a remand based on a challenge under the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. The court did not decide that issue because the case was remanded on another ground.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the administrative law judge did not fully develop the record at step five of the disability analysis. At that step, the agency must determine whether a claimant can adjust to other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy, considering factors including the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience.

The administrative law judge found that Madigan could perform work at all exertional levels, but the vocational expert identified only four unskilled jobs: one sedentary job and three light jobs. The hearing testimony and decision did not address whether Madigan could perform unskilled jobs requiring medium or heavy exertion. The vocational expert did not rule out that possibility, and testimony from an earlier hearing had identified a medium-exertion job that Madigan could perform.

The court rejected Madigan’s argument that the regulation for people of advanced age limited to sedentary or light work required an immediate finding of disability. That regulation applies when the claimant is limited to sedentary or light work, but the administrative law judge had found that Madigan could work at all exertional levels. The court therefore concluded that the record did not establish that the regulation applied.

Disposition

The court found that the missing evidence about medium- and heavy-exertion unskilled jobs meant that substantial evidence did not support the administrative law judge’s step-five decision. Further proceedings were needed so an administrative law judge and vocational expert could determine whether such jobs existed that Madigan could perform. If no such jobs existed and Madigan was limited to light or sedentary work, the regulation concerning advanced-age claimants and transferable skills could become applicable.

Judge Andrew E. Krause denied Madigan’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, granted the Commissioner’s motion for remand, and remanded the case for further administrative proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The court did not itself decide whether Madigan was disabled or direct an award of benefits.