Desselle v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Natasha Desselle sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for disability insurance benefits. The administrative law judge found that Desselle was not disabled from September 17, 2016, through December 31, 2018, the date she was last insured. The judge found that Desselle could not perform her past work but could perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

The administrative law judge found several severe physical and mental impairments, including degenerative conditions affecting the spine, knees, ankle, shoulder, and hands, diabetes with neuropathy, obesity, depression, and anxiety. The judge assessed Desselle’s mental residual functional capacity—the work-related mental abilities she retained—and limited her to work in which she controlled the pace while still meeting general production demands.

The parties’ arguments

Desselle moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the administrative law judge committed legal error by failing to develop the record concerning her mental impairments and that the mental residual functional capacity finding was not supported by substantial evidence. The Commissioner cross-moved for judgment, arguing that the administrative law judge applied the correct legal standards and that substantial evidence supported the decision.

The court’s analysis

The court explained that an administrative law judge has a duty to develop a complete medical record. That duty applies even when a claimant has a lawyer, although the agency must actively seek additional evidence when there are obvious gaps in the record. The court also explained that the absence of a formal medical opinion does not automatically require a remand if the existing record is sufficient to assess a claimant’s abilities.

Here, the record showed that Desselle received therapy in 2018 at Montefiore Medical Group and at “Jewish Home,” but it contained no treatment notes from any therapy sessions. The court found that this missing information was an obvious gap that prevented the administrative law judge from making an informed decision about Desselle’s mental residual functional capacity. The court therefore ordered a remand so the agency could obtain and consider those treatment records.

Because it found that additional record development was required, the court declined to decide Desselle’s argument that the administrative law judge’s decision lacked substantial-evidence support.

Disposition

The court denied the Commissioner’s motion and granted Desselle’s motion. It remanded the case for further administrative proceedings under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), sentence four. On remand, the administrative law judge must review any records from Desselle’s 2018 therapy sessions and reconsider whether the record is sufficient to assess her mental residual functional capacity or whether opinions from treating sources or a consultative psychiatric examiner are necessary. The court directed the clerk to terminate the pending motions and close the case.