Guichardo v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Carolina Guichardo applied for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, alleging that she became unable to work on May 1, 2017. The application was denied initially. After a hearing at which Guichardo appeared without a lawyer, Administrative Law Judge Moises Penalver issued a decision finding that she was not disabled. The Appeals Council denied review, making the administrative law judge’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision.

The administrative law judge found that Guichardo had severe impairments consisting of vertigo, diabetes, hypertension, right Achilles tendonitis, and obesity. He found that these impairments did not meet the criteria in the Social Security Administration’s listed impairments. He determined that Guichardo had the residual functional capacity—the ability to perform work despite her limitations—to perform light work. Because she could not perform her past relevant work, the administrative law judge relied on written answers from a vocational expert to find that she could perform jobs such as hand packager, ticket seller, and final assembler.

Issues and Analysis

Guichardo argued that the administrative law judge failed to properly consider her diabetes and ankle impairment, improperly evaluated her statements about the severity and effects of her symptoms, failed to develop the record, selectively relied on evidence, and failed to establish that suitable jobs existed in significant numbers in the national economy.

The court rejected several of these arguments. It concluded that the administrative law judge properly considered the medical evidence concerning Guichardo’s diabetes and ankle impairment, including imaging, examination findings, and both normal and abnormal clinical findings. The court also concluded that the administrative law judge evaluated the medical records and medical-source opinions without improperly selecting only favorable evidence. In addition, the court found that the administrative law judge asked adequate questions about Guichardo’s medical treatment, work history, medications, physical therapy, and daily activities, satisfying the special obligation to develop the record for a claimant who appeared without a lawyer.

The court agreed, however, that the administrative law judge did not properly evaluate Guichardo’s statements about her symptoms. The decision stated that her reports were not entirely consistent with the medical and other evidence, but it did not adequately address numerous physical-therapy records from September 2018 through March 2019. Those records consistently described ankle and foot pain, difficulty walking and standing, problems using stairs, and limitations in household activities such as laundry and cleaning. The court held that this omission required remand.

The court also noted that the vocational expert answered post-hearing written questions rather than testifying at the hearing, which the court said was permitted. The answers were not signed under oath. Although the court identified that as a problem, it stated that the issue could be corrected at a future hearing and that Guichardo had not challenged the expert’s impartiality, expertise, or qualifications. The court also concluded that the administrative law judge properly relied on the vocational expert’s answers concerning other work.

Disposition

The court granted Guichardo’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 find that Guichardo was disabled; it required further administrative proceedings because of the inadequate evaluation of her subjective statements and the supporting physical-therapy evidence.