Bogner v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Norbert J. Bogner brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), challenging the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of his application for Disability Insurance Benefits. Bogner applied for benefits on August 28, 2017, alleging that his disability began on March 30, 2016. His application was initially denied, and he later testified at a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ). The ALJ found that Bogner had a severe impairment but denied his claim on November 13, 2019. The Social Security Appeals Council denied review on October 21, 2020.

Bogner moved for judgment on the pleadings, asking the court to reverse the ALJ’s decision. He argued that the ALJ improperly found his mental impairments non-severe, failed to determine his physical residual functional capacity based on the medical-opinion evidence, and failed to properly evaluate his statements about his symptoms. The Commissioner filed a cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the ALJ’s decision should be affirmed.

Magistrate Judge Judith C. McCarthy recommended granting Bogner’s motion, denying the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and remanding the matter to the Commissioner for further proceedings. Neither party objected to the recommendation. Because there were no objections, the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error on the record.

Court’s Analysis

The court adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety and found no clear error. It agreed that the ALJ had failed to develop and properly evaluate the record.

First, the ALJ found a hip-impairment questionnaire unpersuasive without trying to determine the illegible author’s name, medical specialty, or the date of the questionnaire. The court also agreed that the ALJ did not properly evaluate the questionnaire or its effect on Bogner’s physical residual functional capacity, meaning the work activities he remained able to perform despite his impairments.

Second, the court concluded that the ALJ’s finding that Bogner’s mental impairment was not severe was not supported by substantial evidence, meaning evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate to support the conclusion. The ALJ relied on findings she considered normal while failing to consider other records supporting the opinions of Bogner’s treating psychiatrists. The ALJ also rejected opinions from two psychiatrists based partly on Bogner’s daily activities and routine, conservative treatment. The court stated that a claimant need not be completely incapacitated to be disabled and that an ALJ may not replace competent medical opinions with the ALJ’s own judgment.

Third, the court agreed that the ALJ improperly omitted all mental limitations from the residual functional capacity assessment even though the record showed that Bogner’s mental impairments contributed to his functional limitations.

Finally, the court found that the ALJ did not properly evaluate Bogner’s statements about his symptoms. The ALJ relied on clinical findings, conservative treatment, and daily activities to conclude that Bogner could perform light work. But the ALJ improperly substituted her own view for medical sources’ views about the significance of the treatment, failed to consider evidence that Bogner needed help with some daily activities and had difficulty performing them, and relied on insufficient clinical findings about his musculoskeletal conditions.

Disposition

Judge Nelson S. Roman adopted Magistrate Judge McCarthy’s report and recommendation. The court granted Bogner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and remanded the matter to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings consistent with the recommendation. The court also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 20 and 26.