Cruz Roman v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Stephanie Marie Cruz Roman, represented by counsel, sought judicial review under the Social Security Act of the Commissioner’s decision denying his application for Supplemental Security Income. Cruz Roman alleged disability beginning October 22, 2008. The administrative law judge found that Cruz Roman had severe major depressive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, bipolar disorder, obesity, and degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine. The administrative law judge found diabetes, eczema, a left heel spur, and learning disabilities non-severe, and determined that Cruz Roman could perform light work with additional physical, environmental, and mental restrictions. Based on vocational-expert testimony, the administrative law judge identified retail marker, office helper, and mail sorter as available jobs.

Cruz Roman challenged the decision on several grounds, including the treatment of diabetes and the heel spur, evaluation of medical opinions, the findings concerning the mental-health listings, the residual functional capacity, and reliance on the vocational-expert testimony.

Court’s Analysis

The court found two errors requiring remand. First, the administrative law judge did not adequately evaluate the medical evidence concerning diabetes. The decision relied on an earlier treatment record describing diabetes as managed with diet and medication, but did not discuss later records reporting symptoms including blurred vision, frequent urination, excessive thirst, and burning extremities. The court stated that the administrative law judge needed to discuss the entire treatment record and explain why diabetes was not severe, while emphasizing that it was not deciding that diabetes was severe.

Second, the administrative law judge did not account in the residual functional capacity—the claimant’s ability to perform sustained work activities—for reported medication side effects such as drowsiness, dizziness, and nausea, or for diabetes-related blurred vision and frequent urination. The court explained that these limitations could affect how often Cruz Roman would be off task. The vocational expert testified that being off task 15 percent of the time or being absent more than twice a month would prevent all work. The court therefore found the residual-functional-capacity finding unsupported by substantial evidence and directed that the issue be reassessed. The court also stated that the administrative law judge should further develop the record if necessary.

The court rejected Cruz Roman’s challenge to the heel-spur finding, concluding that substantial evidence supported the administrative law judge’s treatment of the medical opinion and foot-pain evidence. The court also found no error in the findings that Cruz Roman’s mental impairments caused mild or moderate, rather than marked or extreme, limitations. It concluded that the administrative law judge reasonably discounted the opinion of Nurse Practitioner Behrouzi because she had treated Cruz Roman for only about one week and her opinion was inconsistent with other evidence.

Disposition

Judge Katharine H. Parker granted Cruz Roman’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The case was remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. The opinion did not award benefits or make a final determination that Cruz Roman was disabled.