Sherwood v. Saul

Background

Brian Sherwood sued under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which permits federal-court review of a Social Security decision. He challenged an administrative law judge’s decision denying his application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits because the judge found that Sherwood was not disabled under the Social Security Act.

Both parties moved for judgment on the pleadings. A magistrate judge recommended denying Sherwood’s motion and granting the Commissioner’s motion. Sherwood filed objections, and the Commissioner responded.

Issues and Analysis

The district court reviewed the challenged portions of the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation independently. In reviewing the administrative decision, the court asked whether the correct legal standards were applied and whether substantial evidence—relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate—supported the decision.

Sherwood first argued that the administrative law judge incorrectly found that he did not satisfy Listing 1.04C, which concerned certain spinal disorders and required, among other things, an inability to ambulate effectively. The court agreed that the administrative law judge inaccurately stated that the evidence did not show lumbar spinal stenosis with pseudoclaudication. But the court also agreed with the magistrate judge that the record contained substantial evidence that Sherwood could ambulate effectively. The record included observations of a normal gait, walking without assistance, and Sherwood’s report that he walked 20 blocks a day. The court therefore concluded that Sherwood did not meet Listing 1.04C.

Sherwood next argued that the administrative law judge improperly evaluated reports from Drs. Cuartas, Sanz, Husain, and Quirno. The court found that all four doctors evaluated Sherwood in connection with his workers’ compensation claim. The court explained that a workers’ compensation disability determination uses standards different from those under the Social Security Act and is not binding on the Social Security Administration. The court also agreed that the findings of Drs. Cuartas, Sanz, and Husain did not qualify as medical opinions under the applicable regulations because they did not discuss Sherwood’s limitations and what he could still do despite them. The court concluded that the administrative law judge properly considered Dr. Quirno’s evidence but reasonably discounted it because it was based on the workers’ compensation framework.

Finally, Sherwood argued that Dr. Ronald Mann’s opinions should not have been considered persuasive because Dr. Mann also evaluated him for a workers’ compensation claim. The court rejected that argument. Although the workers’ compensation evaluations were not binding, the administrative law judge could consider the evidence supporting them. The court found that the administrative law judge separately evaluated Dr. Mann’s opinions, finding the opinion based on a June 2017 examination persuasive and the opinion based on a December 2017 examination unpersuasive. Unlike the other doctors’ findings, Dr. Mann’s opinions identified Sherwood’s limitations and therefore qualified as medical opinions under the regulations.

Disposition

The court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, overruled Sherwood’s objections, denied Sherwood’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, and granted the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. It affirmed the Commissioner’s final decision and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. Judge Karas signed the order on March 28, 2023.