Marrero v. Saul

Background

Araceliz Marrero sought judicial review under the Social Security Act of the Commissioner’s decision that she was not disabled from September 15, 2017, through April 29, 2020. She had previously worked as an executive assistant and legal assistant. Her main alleged impairments involved injuries to her right ankle and foot, including an osteochondral injury and the effects of surgeries. The record also included complaints related to her knee, back, neck, and other conditions. Marrero did not challenge the Commissioner’s decision concerning her alleged mental impairments.

Marrero filed for Social Security Disability insurance benefits on January 24, 2019. An administrative law judge, John Carlton, denied the application on April 29, 2020, and the Appeals Council denied review on November 20, 2020. The administrative law judge found that Marrero had severe right-ankle impairments and other non-severe impairments, but that none met the regulatory listings. He determined that she had the residual functional capacity—the most she could still do despite her impairments—to perform the full range of sedentary work. He also found that jobs existed in significant numbers in the national economy that she could perform.

Marrero’s Arguments

Marrero argued that the administrative law judge failed to fully develop the record when determining her residual functional capacity. She contended that the judge relied on an outdated medical opinion from December 2018 and did not adequately account for her July 2019 car accident and continuing ankle symptoms.

She also argued that the finding that she could perform the full range of sedentary work was not supported by substantial evidence. She pointed to treatment records documenting pain, swelling, an abnormal gait, ligament and osteochondral injuries, reduced movement, surgeries, and her use of a cane.

Court’s Analysis

The court first held that the administrative law judge properly developed the record. It found no apparent gaps and noted that the judge kept the record open after the hearing so Marrero could submit additional evidence. The court explained that a medical opinion is not necessarily too old to be considered unless later records show that the claimant’s condition significantly deteriorated or that a new injury created greater restrictions.

The court found that Marrero had not identified evidence showing a significant new impairment or deterioration affecting her ability to perform sedentary work. Although she reported that the 2019 car accident worsened her condition, she testified that she had seen a chiropractor but had not visited a primary-care physician or urgent-care facility. The court also noted that the record contained no medical scans or reports showing injuries from the accident to her spine, knee, or arm that would affect sedentary work.

The court then held that the sedentary residual-functional-capacity finding was supported by substantial evidence. It relied on the overall record, which showed some ankle tenderness and instability but also improved stability, good strength, active range of motion, and medical opinions indicating that Marrero could work or had only mild-to-moderate mobility limitations. Her treating orthopedic surgeon stated that she could return to work with strict sedentary restrictions. Other medical sources found that she could return to regular work, had mild-to-moderate limitations, or could sit for six hours and stand or walk for two hours in an eight-hour day.

The court also rejected Marrero’s argument that the administrative law judge improperly failed to include a cane requirement in the residual functional capacity. Marrero testified that she did not use the cane all the time, and treatment notes indicated that she sometimes did not use or need an assistive device. The court concluded that occasional cane use was not inconsistent with sedentary work and did not show legal error in the residual-functional-capacity finding.

Disposition

Judge Katharine H. Parker concluded that the administrative law judge’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and that the court should not reweigh the evidence or decide independently whether Marrero was disabled. The court denied Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and granted Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.