Revi v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Yenaury Revi, appearing without a lawyer, sought review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying her disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. She alleged disability beginning May 17, 2013, based on conditions including a thyroid disorder, the effects of breast-cancer treatment, back pain, cervical radiculopathy, fibromyalgia, anemia, insomnia, and shoulder pain.

In an earlier round of this case, the court remanded the matter because the administrative law judge had not adequately developed the record about possible side effects from Synthroid and tamoxifen. The earlier remand directed the administrative law judge to seek additional opinion evidence from Revi’s endocrinologist and oncologist and to reconsider the medical opinions, Revi’s credibility, and her residual functional capacity—the most she could still do despite her impairments.

After further hearings, Administrative Law Judge Alexander G. Levine again found that Revi was not disabled. He determined that she could perform light work with various physical and environmental restrictions and could perform her past work as a cashier, as well as work as an inspector of plastic products, assembler, or marker. Revi did not appeal to the Social Security Administration’s Appeals Council and instead sought federal-court review.

Arguments and analysis

The Commissioner argued that substantial evidence supported the administrative law judge’s decision. Revi argued that the vocational expert improperly identified jobs she could perform and that the administrative law judge failed to consider the medical opinion of Dr. Danielle Duret.

The court held that those arguments did not identify the central errors requiring remand. First, the administrative law judge did not follow the court’s earlier remand instructions. Although he obtained additional records and opinions from several providers and consulting experts, the record did not show that he sought the specifically directed opinion evidence from Revi’s endocrinologist and oncologist. The requests to the endocrinologist sought only updated medical records, not an opinion about medication side effects and their functional consequences.

Second, the administrative law judge did not adequately develop the record about possible side effects from Synthroid and tamoxifen. The court noted that the record contained evidence suggesting Revi may have continued to experience effects related to tamoxifen and that additional medical opinions could have clarified whether her later diagnosis of endometrial polyps was connected to that treatment and whether further work-related limitations were necessary. The administrative law judge also did not consider those possible medication side effects when formulating Revi’s residual functional capacity.

Disposition

The court concluded that the administrative law judge’s failures were legal errors requiring remand. It remanded the case to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings, directing the administrative law judge to obtain additional opinions about tamoxifen and Synthroid side effects and then reconsider the medical opinions, Revi’s credibility, and her residual functional capacity as appropriate. The court did not award benefits or determine that Revi was disabled.

The Commissioner also moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) to dismiss Administrative Law Judge Levine. The court explained that Revi sought review under the Social Security Act’s judicial-review provision and had not pleaded claims against Levine; the Commissioner was the proper defendant for that type of action. The court therefore dismissed all claims against Levine with prejudice.

The Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted in part and denied in part. The action against Administrative Law Judge Levine was dismissed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.