Hernandez v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Fernando R. Hernandez sought judicial review of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying his application for Supplemental Security Income benefits. Hernandez alleged disability beginning June 10, 2014, based primarily on a herniated disc, pinched nerves, sciatica, and asthma. He also applied for Disability Insurance Benefits, but he did not challenge the denial of those benefits in this case.

After a hearing, Administrative Law Judge John Carlton denied Hernandez’s Supplemental Security Income claim. The judge found severe impairments involving degenerative disc disease and bulging discs in the lumbar spine, obstructive sleep apnea, and obesity. The judge found asthma and depression non-severe, determined that Hernandez had the residual functional capacity (RFC)—the ability to perform work despite his limitations—to do a reduced range of light work, and concluded that he could perform jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Hernandez moved for judgment on the pleadings, asking the court to reverse the administrative decision or remand the case. The Commissioner filed a cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Court’s analysis

The court reviewed the Commissioner’s decision to determine whether it applied the correct legal standard and was supported by substantial evidence, meaning relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate.

The court held that the administrative law judge did not properly evaluate the medical-opinion evidence. The judge considered the opinion of Dr. Putcha, a non-examining state-agency medical consultant, generally persuasive, while finding the opinions of Dr. Kosharskyy, Hernandez’s treating physician, and Dr. Finegan, an examining consultant, unpersuasive.

The court found that the administrative law judge did not adequately explain the two most important factors under the applicable regulations: supportability and consistency. The judge stated in general terms that Dr. Putcha’s opinion was supported by the evidence and consistent with Hernandez’s strength and mobility, but did not identify the specific evidence supporting those conclusions. The court also found the analysis especially problematic because Dr. Putcha’s opinion was stale. He had not reviewed Dr. Kosharskyy’s opinion, had not personally examined Hernandez, and had not reviewed later medical records indicating worsening back symptoms. The judge also did not explain why Dr. Putcha’s opinion was persuasive when the opinion of Dr. Finegan—the only medical opinion Dr. Putcha cited—was found unpersuasive.

The court separately held that substantial evidence did not support the RFC finding that Hernandez could perform light work. Light work included lifting or carrying up to 20 pounds occasionally and up to 10 pounds frequently. Dr. Kosharskyy had opined that Hernandez could lift no more than 10 pounds. Although the record contained treatment notes describing aspects of normal or full strength, the court held that those medical records alone could not support the RFC determination. The only medical opinion supporting the ability to lift or carry 20 pounds was Dr. Putcha’s stale opinion, which could not provide substantial evidence for that finding.

Disposition

The court concluded that the administrative law judge’s inadequate evaluation of the medical opinions and unsupported RFC determination required a new hearing and further proceedings. The court did not address Hernandez’s other arguments concerning the listed impairment for back disorders, the severity of his mental impairments, or the evaluation of his testimony.

Judge Valerie Figueredo granted Hernandez’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings. The case was remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.