Rivera v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Raul Rivera objected to a report and recommendation by Magistrate Judge Judith C. McCarthy. The recommendation advised denying Rivera’s motion for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) and granting the Commissioner of Social Security’s cross-motion. The district court reviewed the portions challenged by Rivera and considered whether the administrative law judge applied the correct legal standards and whether substantial evidence supported the administrative decision.

Rivera focused on two issues. First, he argued that the administrative law judge improperly failed to account for evidence concerning how much time he might be off task or absent from work. Second, he argued that the administrative law judge incorrectly found the opinions of Dr. Malik, Dr. Cohen, and Nurse Practitioner Bae unpersuasive.

Off-task and absence evidence

The administrative law judge found Dr. M. Juriga’s opinion persuasive. Dr. Juriga identified moderate limitations involving, among other things, maintaining regular attendance, following a schedule, maintaining attention and concentration, and completing a normal workday without interruptions or unreasonable rest periods. The administrative law judge nevertheless assessed a mental residual functional capacity for light work limited to simple, routine tasks that were not performed at a product-rate pace, no more than occasional workplace changes, and no more than frequent interaction with supervisors, coworkers, and the public.

Rivera argued that Dr. Juriga’s findings, together with vocational-expert testimony that an employer would not tolerate being off task more than 5 percent of the time or absent more than one day per month, required a finding that Rivera could not maintain full-time employment. The magistrate judge had characterized that argument as speculative and recommended upholding the administrative law judge’s treatment of the issue.

The district court rejected that part of the recommendation. It explained that Dr. Juriga’s opinion, which the administrative law judge had found persuasive, expressly identified limitations involving attendance and staying on task. Other opinions also addressed attendance or concentration, including opinions that Rivera would miss one or three days of work per month and had marked limitations in some work-related abilities. But Dr. Juriga had not quantified how the moderate limitations would affect Rivera’s actual attendance and concentration. Because the evidence showed some limitation but did not establish its practical extent, the court held that the administrative law judge had a duty to develop the record further. The court found legal error in failing to address how much work Rivera might miss because of his impairments.

Medical opinions

The court upheld the magistrate judge’s conclusion that the administrative law judge properly found the opinions of Dr. Malik, Dr. Cohen, and Nurse Practitioner Bae unpersuasive. Under the applicable regulations, the administrative law judge had to explain the opinions’ supportability—how well each source supported and explained the opinion—and consistency—how well the opinion fit with the entire record.

The district court found that the administrative law judge explained those factors for each opinion. The administrative law judge noted that Dr. Malik met Rivera on the same day he completed the medical-source statement yet offered opinions about impairments dating back to 2004. The administrative law judge also found that Nurse Practitioner Bae’s physical restrictions conflicted with Rivera’s reports of running, lifting weights, and boxing. The court concluded that the administrative law judge adequately explained why all three opinions were inconsistent with the overall record and did not err by finding them unpersuasive.

Ruling

The court adopted in part and rejected in part the report and recommendation. It granted Rivera’s motion for judgment on the pleadings to the extent of the remand, denied the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, and remanded the action to the Commissioner for further development of the record. The court did not direct a particular ultimate decision on Rivera’s claim; the remand concerned the unresolved evidence about off-task time and work absences.