Ramos v. Social Security
- Ona Wang
- 1:20-cv-09436
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 13
In Ramos v. Commissioner, Judge Wang remanded the disability decision after finding the agency failed to develop the record and consider new evidence.
Linda Ramos and the Social Security Administration; the decision requires the Commissioner to reconsider the claim in further proceedings.
What happened
In Linda Ramos v. Commissioner of Social Security, Linda Ramos challenged the denial of Supplemental Security Income based on anxiety, back pain, and other physical, mental, and intellectual impairments. She had represented herself at the administrative hearing.
The court found that the administrative law judge did not fully develop the medical record because he failed to obtain treating-physician opinions despite a gap in the evidence and did not tell Ramos about that gap or her right to obtain records herself. The court also found that the Appeals Council did not adequately consider a treating psychiatrist’s new opinion describing moderate-to-marked work limitations. However, the court upheld the judge’s evaluation of Ramos’s statements about her symptoms.
Judge Ona T. Wang granted Ramos’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and remanded the Social Security decision for further proceedings.
The detailed version
- Ramos v. Social Security · No. 1:20-cv-09436
- Ona Wang
- Mar. 3, 2023
Background
Linda Ramos applied for Supplemental Security Income on September 25, 2018, alleging disability beginning September 21, 2017. She identified severe anxiety, back pain, and multiple physical, mental, and intellectual impairments. The administrative law judge found severe impairments including intellectual disability, obsessive-compulsive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety disorder, depressive disorder, degenerative disc disease, asthma, and obesity. The judge concluded that Ramos could perform light work and could work as a hand bander, cashier, or inspector/hand packer.
The administrative law judge denied benefits on October 17, 2019. The Appeals Council denied review on September 9, 2020, making the administrative law judge’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision. Ramos attended the administrative hearing without a lawyer.
Issues and analysis
Ramos raised three issues: whether the administrative law judge fully and fairly developed the record for a self-represented claimant; whether the Appeals Council properly considered new and material evidence; and whether the administrative law judge properly evaluated her statements about the intensity and effects of her symptoms.
Development of the record
The court explained that an administrative law judge has a special duty to protect a self-represented claimant’s rights by developing the medical record fully and fairly. The administrative law judge obtained medical records from Mount Vernon Neighborhood Health and cited medical evidence concerning Ramos’s physical and mental conditions. But the court found an obvious gap in the record: the judge did not obtain a report from Ramos’s treating physicians describing the existence, nature, and severity of her claimed disability. The judge also did not inform Ramos about the missing documentation or her right to subpoena medical records and reports herself.
The court also found that the administrative law judge gave no specific reasons for finding the opinions of consulting psychologists Dr. Melissa Antiaris and Dr. M. D’Ortona only partially persuasive. These shortcomings supported remand.
New evidence before the Appeals Council
After the administrative law judge’s decision, treating psychiatrist Dr. Babatunde Asemota submitted an opinion dated December 19, 2019. The opinion described moderate-to-marked or marked limitations in numerous work-related abilities, including understanding and carrying out instructions, maintaining attention and concentration, sustaining a routine, completing a workday, interacting with others, and responding to workplace changes. It also stated that Ramos would miss work more than three times per month because of her impairments or treatment.
The Appeals Council stated that it had considered the new evidence but concluded, without further explanation, that it did not show a reasonable probability of changing the outcome. The court held that Dr. Asemota’s opinion was new, material, and related to the period before the administrative law judge’s decision. Because it came from a treating psychiatrist and described substantial limitations, the court found a reasonable probability that it could change the outcome. The Appeals Council’s unexplained rejection of the evidence was therefore inadequate.
Evaluation of Ramos’s statements
The court rejected Ramos’s challenge to the evaluation of her statements about her symptoms. It held that the administrative law judge considered her reports of sleeplessness, depression, low self-esteem, loneliness, excessive worry, cleaning compulsions, panic attacks, and memory and concentration problems. The judge also considered evidence that Ramos followed treatment instructions, complied with treatment, and experienced improvement with therapy and medication. The court concluded that the judge properly found her statements about the intensity and limiting effects of her symptoms inconsistent with the record.
Disposition
The court granted Ramos’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings, and remanded the Commissioner’s decision for further proceedings under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The opinion did not award benefits or state that Ramos was disabled; it required additional administrative proceedings.
Read the full 13-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.