Mangual v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Marisol Mangual sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying her applications for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. Mangual alleged that her disability began on December 31, 2015. After a hearing, the administrative law judge found that she was not disabled.

The administrative law judge found severe impairments including asthma, bipolar disorder, anxiety disorder, and panic disorder. He determined that Mangual could perform work at all exertional levels if she avoided dust, fumes, gases, odors, and poor ventilation, and if she were limited to simple, repetitive, routine tasks. He also incorporated a finding that Mangual could not read or write. Because Mangual had no past relevant work, the administrative law judge relied on vocational-expert testimony at the final step of the disability analysis and identified cafeteria attendant, assembler, and electronic subassembler jobs.

Mangual’s arguments

Mangual argued that the administrative law judge failed to develop the record, improperly substituted his own judgment for medical opinions, failed to explain the residual functional capacity determination, and did not address conflicts between the Dictionary of Occupational Titles and the vocational expert’s testimony.

Court’s analysis

The court rejected Mangual’s argument that the administrative law judge failed to develop the record regarding her claimed intellectual disability, psychiatric treatment, psychometric testing, and physical therapy. The record included psychological examinations, a statement from Mangual’s mother about special education, and efforts to obtain records from Montefiore. The court also noted that Mangual’s counsel had represented that the record was complete and that the later physical-therapy records were unlikely to affect the decision because the treatment began after the relevant insured period identified by the administrative law judge.

The court also upheld the administrative law judge’s treatment of the medical opinions. It concluded that the administrative law judge reasonably gave limited weight to Dr. Carol McLean Long’s physical-limitations opinion because the opinion was vague and inconsistent with other evidence, including mostly normal range of motion and reported daily activities. The court further concluded that substantial evidence supported the administrative law judge’s finding that Mangual had mild, rather than moderate, limitations in social interaction. The court found that the administrative law judge adequately addressed other mental limitations through the restriction to simple, repetitive, routine tasks and the discussion of Mangual’s daily activities and treatment records.

The court nevertheless found a problem with the vocational evidence. Social Security rules require an administrative law judge to identify and obtain a reasonable explanation for conflicts between vocational-expert testimony and occupational information in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. The court determined that such a conflict existed because the Dictionary listings for the identified jobs called for some literacy, while the vocational expert testified that at least some of the jobs could be performed through demonstration by a person who could not read or write.

The court found that the vocational expert clearly explained the electronic-subassembler position, but did not clearly explain whether a person who could not read or write could perform the cafeteria-attendant job or the assembler-of-communication-equipment job. Because it was unclear whether the electronic-subassembler jobs alone existed in sufficient numbers, the court held that clearer findings were required.

Disposition

Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein denied the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and granted Mangual’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court remanded the case to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings consistent with the opinion and directed the Clerk to enter judgment and close the case.