Flores v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Ricardo Alfredo Perez Flores sought review under the Social Security Act of the Commissioner’s decision on his applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The administrative law judge previously found that Flores was disabled as of January 13, 2017, but not before that date. This case concerned only the period before January 13, 2017.

Flores had stopped working after injuring his dominant right hand. The record also included evidence of degenerative disc disease, knee osteoarthritis, and obesity. After an earlier related proceeding, the case was sent back to the Commissioner for further proceedings. On remand, Administrative Law Judge Zachary Weiss again found that Flores was not disabled before January 13, 2017. The administrative law judge determined that Flores could perform light work with no more than occasional handling, fingering, and feeling, and could not climb ropes or ladders. Although Flores could not perform his past work, the judge found that jobs existed in significant numbers in the national economy that he could perform.

Arguments and Analysis

Flores moved for judgment on the pleadings, asking the court to overturn or remand the administrative decision. The Commissioner cross-moved for judgment on the pleadings, asking the court to affirm it.

Flores made three principal arguments:

1. Medical listings: Flores argued that the administrative law judge failed to determine properly whether his impairments medically equaled a listed impairment, particularly Listing 1.15 for a spinal disorder compromising a nerve root. The court agreed that the administrative law judge’s explanation was sparse, but held that substantial evidence supported the conclusion that Flores did not meet or medically equal Listings 1.15, 1.16, or 1.18 before January 13, 2017. The record showed some imaging evidence of nerve-root compromise, but did not establish the other required criteria, including the necessary symptoms, physical signs, assistive-device requirements, and continuous duration. The court also found that medical expert Dr. Ronald Kendrick’s testimony supported the decision, including his opinion that Flores did not meet a listing before 2017.

2. Vocational-expert testimony: Flores argued that the administrative law judge failed to investigate a conflict between the vocational expert’s testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. The court explained that an administrative law judge must meaningfully inquire about and resolve apparent conflicts. It nevertheless rejected Flores’s argument because the alleged conflict concerned a hypothetical involving frequent handling and fingering, while the administrative law judge actually relied on testimony concerning the more restrictive limitation of occasional handling and fingering. The court also rejected Flores’s challenges to the identified jobs, including his claims about the job descriptions and the code for the laminating-machine position.

3. Omitted letter: Flores argued that the administrative law judge improperly failed to include on the exhibit list a March 29, 2021 letter in which Flores agreed to an alleged onset date of January 13, 2012. The court assumed that the omission could be considered an error but held that it had no legal consequence. Flores did not explain how considering the earlier date would change the result or identify record evidence showing disability as of that date. The court therefore found that any error was harmless.

Disposition

The court concluded that the administrative law judge’s determination was supported by substantial evidence and contained no reversible error. Pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the court DENIED Flores’s motion and GRANTED the Commissioner’s motion. The Clerk of Court was directed to enter judgment in favor of the Commissioner and close the case.