Alvarez v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Sylvia Alvarez brought an action under Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act seeking review of the Social Security Administration’s denial of her application for Disability Insurance Benefits. She alleged that she became disabled on August 29, 2018. Her claims involved acute asthma, which the opinion says worsened during 2017 and 2018, as well as depression. The administrative law judge held a hearing on January 28, 2020, and found that Alvarez was not disabled and was not entitled to benefits for the relevant period. The Appeals Council denied review.

The administrative law judge found that Alvarez had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset date. The judge found severe impairments involving obesity, a lumbar impairment, and asthma, but concluded that these impairments did not meet or equal the Act’s listed impairments. The judge also found that Alvarez retained the ability to perform certain work, including her past work as a receptionist.

The parties filed cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings. The court had referred the case to Magistrate Judge Gary Jones, who issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Alvarez’s motion be granted, the Commissioner’s motion be denied, and the case be remanded for further proceedings. Neither party objected to the Report and Recommendation.

Court’s Analysis

Because no objections were filed, the court reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. The court found no clear error and adopted the Report and Recommendation in full.

The court agreed with Magistrate Judge Jones that the administrative law judge did not adequately evaluate Alvarez’s subjective complaints. In particular, the administrative law judge did not sufficiently explain how the record contradicted Alvarez’s testimony about shortness of breath, chronic fatigue, and constant coughing that was worsened by conversation.

The court also agreed that the administrative law judge did not adequately explain why Alvarez’s complaints were inconsistent with her management of her impairments. The administrative law judge improperly treated a consultative examiner’s list of strenuous activities to avoid as exclusive, did not explain how occasional household chores conflicted with Alvarez’s complaints, and ignored her extensive work history, which the Report and Recommendation identified as supporting her credibility.

Finally, the court agreed that the administrative law judge’s findings about Alvarez’s residual functional capacity—the work-related abilities she retained despite her impairments—and her ability to perform her past relevant work as a reception clerk were not adequately supported by the record.

Disposition

The court granted Alvarez’s motion to remand the case for further administrative proceedings. It denied the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The clerk was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case. The court also stated that, because the parties had been warned about the consequences of failing to object, their failure to object precluded appellate review of the decision.