Appling v. Saul, Commissioner of Social Security
- Sarah Cave
- 1:21-cv-05091
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 22
In Appling v. Saul, Judge Cave remanded the disability-benefits case for further proceedings, granted the Commissioner’s motion, and denied Appling’s motion as moot.
Shakima C. Appling and the Commissioner of Social Security. The case returns to the Commissioner for further proceedings, and the court did not order benefits at this stage.
What happened
In Appling v. Saul, Shakima C. Appling challenged the Social Security Administration’s denial of Supplemental Security Income and Disability Insurance Benefits. She argued that the administrative law judge wrongly evaluated the medical evidence and her ability to work.
The court found that the administrative law judge did not properly evaluate the consistency of medical opinions, failed to explain why concentration and pace limitations were omitted from Appling’s work-capacity assessment, and did not properly consider several opinions from Dr. Correa. The court also found that the record did not require an immediate award of benefits because the medical evidence was conflicting.
Judge Cave granted the Commissioner’s motion to remand for further proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). She denied Appling’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as moot and did not order an award of benefits.
The detailed version
- Appling v. Saul, Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:21-cv-05091
- Sarah Cave
- Aug. 23, 2022
Background
Shakima C. Appling sought review under Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act of the Commissioner’s denial of her applications for Supplemental Security Income and Disability Insurance Benefits. She alleged that she became unable to work because of several physical and mental conditions, including bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety, asthma, thyroid problems, arthritis, and sleep apnea.
An administrative law judge first denied her applications in 2019. In an earlier round of this case, the court reversed and remanded that decision for further administrative proceedings, including additional consideration of a medical opinion and Appling’s residual functional capacity (RFC), meaning her ability to perform work-related activities. After a second hearing, Administrative Law Judge Mark Solomon again found that Appling was not disabled and that she could perform jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy. The Appeals Council denied review, making that decision final for purposes of judicial review.
Court’s analysis
The Commissioner moved to remand the case for further proceedings. Appling did not oppose a remand but argued that the court should order a calculation and award of benefits instead.
The Commissioner conceded that the administrative law judge had not evaluated the medical opinions consistently with the regulations adopted after 2017. The court agreed that the RFC assessment was not supported by substantial evidence, which means enough relevant evidence to support a reasonable conclusion. The medical opinions consistently identified some limitation in Appling’s ability to concentrate, maintain persistence, and keep pace. The administrative law judge did not explain why he omitted any such limitation from the RFC, even though he explained other restrictions involving contact with coworkers and the public, routine changes, and decision-making.
The court also found several problems in the evaluation of Dr. Michael Correa’s opinions. The administrative law judge did not consider Dr. Correa’s opinion that Appling’s symptoms frequently interfered with attention and concentration, did not assess whether that opinion was consistent with the rest of the record, and did not properly evaluate Dr. Correa’s assessment of limitations in standing. The court further noted evidence concerning worsening asthma, treatment for depression and anxiety, concentration and persistence problems, and fatigue related to iron-deficiency anemia.
Disposition
The court held that further proceedings, rather than an immediate calculation of benefits, were appropriate. It explained that the record contained conflicting medical evidence and did not compel a finding that Appling was disabled. Further administrative review could therefore serve a purpose.
Judge Cave granted the Commissioner’s motion to remand, denied Appling’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as moot, and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for further proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The court did not award benefits.
Read the full 22-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.