Devers v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Ona Wang
- 1:21-cv-05931
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 14
In Devers v. Commissioner, Judge Wang remanded the disability denial because the administrative judge mishandled mental-health opinions and absenteeism, while upholding other findings.
Rita Devers, whose denial of Social Security Disability Insurance benefits was remanded for further proceedings; the Commissioner of Social Security must reconsider the decision.
What happened
In Devers v. Commissioner of Social Security, Rita Devers challenged the denial of her application for disability benefits. The administrative law judge found that she was not disabled as of December 31, 2014 and could perform her past work.
The court found that the judge improperly evaluated opinions from Devers’s treating psychiatrists about her mental impairments and failed to consider how often her conditions would cause absences or time off task. The court upheld the judge’s evaluation of Devers’s physical impairments and statements about her symptoms.
Judge Ona T. Wang granted Devers’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and remanded the decision for further proceedings. The ruling did not award benefits.
The detailed version
- Devers v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:21-cv-05931
- Ona Wang
- Mar. 31, 2023
Background
Rita Devers applied for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits, alleging that she became disabled on March 2, 2013. After an earlier court remand, Administrative Law Judge Selwyn Walters held a hearing and issued a decision finding that Devers was not disabled as of her date last insured, December 31, 2014. The judge found severe impairments involving both knees, recurrent mycotic toenails, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. He found her depression and anxiety non-severe, determined that she could perform medium work with some limits on climbing, and concluded that she could perform her past relevant work.
Devers sought review in the district court. She argued that the administrative law judge had improperly evaluated her mental impairments, physical impairments, statements about her symptoms, and likely monthly absences.
Court’s Analysis
The court held that the administrative law judge improperly evaluated the opinions of Devers’s treating psychiatrists, Dr. Estefan and Dr. Pachas. Those doctors reported substantial limitations in Devers’s ability to maintain attention, sustain a routine, work consistently, respond to workplace changes, and complete a normal workweek. They also stated that the limitations existed at least as far back as 2014. The court concluded that these opinions were supported by medical findings and were not clearly inconsistent with the treatment record. It found that the administrative law judge improperly relied on his own assessment instead of properly applying the treating-physician rule, which generally requires appropriate weight to be given to a well-supported treating physician’s opinion that is consistent with the record.
The court also held that the administrative law judge failed to address the expected frequency of Devers’s absences and time off task. The vocational expert testified that being off task 15 percent of the time would prevent employment and that more than nine absences per year would be work-preclusive. Both treating psychiatrists stated that Devers would be absent more than three times per month. The court concluded that the residual functional capacity finding did not account for this evidence.
The court upheld the administrative law judge’s evaluation of Devers’s physical impairments, including the findings concerning sleep apnea and alleged back, arm, and hand pain. It also upheld the evaluation of Devers’s statements about the intensity and effects of her symptoms, concluding that the judge compared those statements with the medical and other evidence in the record.
Disposition
The court granted Devers’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 court did not direct an award of benefits.
Read the full 14-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.