Foster v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Background

Michaele Foster sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The administrative law judge held a telephone hearing on June 11, 2020, and later found that Foster was not disabled. The Appeals Council denied review on January 6, 2022.

The administrative law judge found that Foster had severe impairments consisting of obesity and multiple sclerosis. He determined that she had the residual functional capacity—the most she could still do despite her impairments—to perform light work with several restrictions, including limits on climbing, crouching, crawling, exposure to heights and moving machinery, and extreme heat. He did not include a restriction for cane use. Based on that assessment, he found that Foster could perform some of her past work and, alternatively, other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Foster’s Arguments

Foster raised three arguments: that she had not meaningfully given up her right to representation at the administrative hearing, that the administrative law judge did not adequately develop the medical record, and that the decision was not supported by substantial evidence. The court did not reach the first two arguments because it found the substantial-evidence challenge required a remand.

Court’s Analysis

The administrative law judge relied heavily on an opinion from Dr. R. Mohanty, a state-agency physician who had not examined Foster and whose review was based on records available as of October 9, 2018. Dr. Mohanty concluded that Foster could perform light work, including lifting up to 20 pounds occasionally, lifting 10 pounds frequently, and standing or walking for six hours during a workday.

The court explained that an older medical opinion may not provide substantial evidence if later evidence shows that the claimant’s condition deteriorated and the opinion does not account for that evidence. After Dr. Mohanty’s review, Foster’s medical records documented additional symptoms, including numbness and tingling, left-hand shaking, weakness, back pain, lesions on spinal and brain imaging, tremors, dizziness, and diminished sensation. Foster also testified that she had been prescribed a cane and had problems with her voice.

Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein concluded that the administrative law judge was not in a position to determine the significance of the later evidence by relying on his own interpretation of the medical records. Because the opinion supporting Foster’s functional capacity came from a physician who had not examined her and had not reviewed approximately two years of later records suggesting worsening symptoms, the court could not find substantial evidence supporting the finding that Foster could perform the physical requirements of light work.

Disposition

The court granted Foster’s motion to remand and denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings. The case was remanded to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. The court directed that, on remand, the administrative law judge should obtain a medical opinion addressing Foster’s residual functional capacity using all of her medical records.