Cuspert v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Samuel Cuspert sought judicial review under Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act of the denial of his application for Supplemental Security Income. He alleged psychological illness. The parties filed cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings, which asks the court to decide the case based on the pleadings when no material factual dispute exists.

An administrative law judge found that Cuspert had severe depressive disorder and antisocial personality disorder, but concluded that he did not meet the applicable mental-impairment listings. The judge assessed a residual functional capacity allowing work at all exertional levels, subject to limits on the complexity of instructions, work pace, and contact with other people. Relying on vocational-expert testimony, the judge found that Cuspert could perform work as a hand packager, industrial cleaner, or marker and therefore denied benefits. The Social Security Administration’s Appeals Council denied review.

Issues and Analysis

Cuspert argued, among other things, that the record supported disability, that the administrative law judge improperly evaluated medical opinions, that the judge improperly evaluated the criteria for Listings 12.04 and 12.08, and that the vocational-expert testimony did not adequately account for his limitations. The Commissioner argued that the administrative law judge properly evaluated the evidence and that substantial evidence supported the denial.

The court focused on the administrative law judge’s duty to develop a complete record. The record contained conflicting evidence about Cuspert’s intellectual abilities. During a January 2019 examination, Dr. Alan Dubro found that Cuspert could not perform certain simple calculations, had impaired memory, appeared to fall in the intellectually disabled range, and had limited general knowledge. Dr. Dubro recommended an intelligence evaluation because of Cuspert’s significant learning history.

The record also showed that Cuspert had completed only ninth grade in special education, had no General Educational Development degree, and had no documented intelligence quotient, school records, or other intelligence assessment. Other evidence, including his coherent hearing testimony, legible function reports, and job interviews, pointed in the other direction. The court concluded that this conflicting evidence required further development and that the administrative law judge erred by not obtaining the recommended intelligence evaluation.

The court further noted that the administrative law judge considered Listings 12.04 and 12.08 but did not consider Listing 12.05, which addresses intellectual disorders. The court instructed that, after receiving the intelligence-evaluation results, the administrative law judge should consider whether Cuspert’s impairments satisfy Listing 12.05 as well as Listings 12.04 and 12.08. The court did not decide whether Cuspert met any listing or was ultimately entitled to benefits.

Disposition

Judge Sarah L. Cave held that the record gap prevented the court from concluding that substantial evidence supported the administrative decision. The court granted Cuspert’s motion, denied the Commissioner’s motion, and remanded the administrative law judge’s decision under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. Because remand was required for further record development, the court did not reach Cuspert’s alternative arguments.