Febus v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

June Elizabeth Febus applied for Supplemental Security Income on May 31, 2017. The application was denied, and she later appeared with counsel before Administrative Law Judge Paul R. Armstrong. On August 6, 2019, the administrative law judge found that Febus was not disabled and was not entitled to benefits. The Appeals Council denied review.

The administrative law judge found severe impairments including degenerative joint and disk disease, gastric impairment, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, depression, anxiety, and residuals of toenail and hammertoe surgery. He determined that Febus had the capacity to perform light work, with specified lifting, standing, walking, and sitting limits. He also found moderate limitations in understanding, remembering, and applying information and in concentrating, persisting, or maintaining pace, along with mild limitations in interacting with others and adapting or managing herself.

Febus challenged the decision, arguing that the administrative law judge did not properly evaluate her mental impairments and did not establish a residual functional capacity consistent with Social Security Ruling 96-8p. The parties submitted a joint statement of the relevant facts, medical evidence, and hearing testimony.

Reasons for Remand

The court held that the administrative law judge’s assessment of the medical evidence was affected by factual errors.

Nurse Robinson’s opinion

Nurse Robinson, a psychiatric and mental-health specialist, opined that Febus had an extreme loss of ability in several areas, including understanding and remembering detailed instructions, carrying out detailed instructions, maintaining attention and concentration for extended periods, and working near others without becoming distracted. Robinson also found marked losses in several other work-related abilities, including sustaining a routine without special supervision, handling workplace stress, completing a normal workday or workweek, responding to supervisors and coworkers, and adapting to workplace changes.

The administrative law judge discounted this opinion partly because Febus understood and responded appropriately during the hearing and appeared able to concentrate and follow the proceedings. The court concluded that the administrative law judge improperly substituted his own nonmedical assessment for a medical expert’s opinion. The court also found that the administrative law judge did not adequately explain how certain mental-status-examination notes conflicted with Robinson’s opinion, and noted that some cited records did not support the findings attributed to them.

Other medical evidence

The administrative law judge stated that Febus had received only conservative spinal treatment and had not received physical therapy for her back problems. The court found that the record showed physical therapy on at least two occasions. Because this factual error was relevant to the assessment of Febus’s symptoms, the court concluded that the administrative law judge had not adequately reviewed the medical evidence.

Disposition

Judge Ona T. Wang granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and denied the Commissioner’s Cross Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The court remanded the case for further administrative review, including but not limited to a new hearing and a new decision.

The opinion contains an internal date inconsistency: it describes the Appeals Council appeal as challenging an administrative law judge decision dated November 20, 2019, while elsewhere identifies the administrative law judge’s decision as dated August 6, 2019.