Rivera v. Kijakazi

Background

Milagro N. Rivera sought review under the Social Security Act of the Commissioner’s decision denying her supplemental security income. Rivera moved for judgment on the pleadings, asking the court to reverse or remand the administrative decision. The Commissioner cross-moved for judgment on the pleadings, asking the court to affirm it.

After a prior administrative proceeding and remand, Administrative Law Judge Flor M. Suarez held additional hearings and issued a decision finding Rivera not disabled. The administrative law judge found severe impairments including lumbar degenerative disc disease, fibromyalgia, obesity, major depressive disorder, and adjustment disorder with anxiety. The judge found that Rivera could perform sedentary work subject to physical, environmental, and mental restrictions, including limited interaction with others and permission to be off-task for 5% of the workday. Based on testimony from a vocational expert, the judge found that Rivera could perform jobs such as document preparer, addresser, and charge account clerk.

Issues and analysis

Rivera raised five challenges. She argued that the administrative law judge improperly evaluated her fibromyalgia, failed to properly analyze whether her impairments met or equaled listed impairments, improperly evaluated her treating doctors’ opinions, failed to account for likely work absences, and failed to consider that she could not independently use public transportation to get to work.

The court rejected the first three challenges. It explained that the administrative law judge expressly found fibromyalgia to be a medically determinable severe impairment. The court also concluded that the judge’s analysis of the mental-health listing criteria was supported by substantial evidence, even though the court described the record citations as somewhat opaque. The court would not reweigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for the administrative law judge’s where the evidence supported more than one reasonable interpretation.

The court further concluded that the administrative law judge complied with the treating-physician rule. The judge reviewed the medical opinions and gave reasons for assigning some, little, or no weight, including inconsistencies with treatment notes, lack of clinical or objective support, and conflicts with other evidence. The court found those reasons sufficient even though the administrative law judge did not expressly discuss every factor used to evaluate treating-doctor opinions.

Absenteeism

The vocational expert testified that Rivera could not maintain employment if she were absent more than approximately once a month or ten times a year, including arriving late or leaving early. Medical sources had offered opinions indicating that Rivera would be absent more frequently, including an opinion that she could be absent more than four days per month and another estimating as many as 20 absences per month. Another doctor described Rivera’s ability to maintain regular attendance at work as markedly limited.

The court held that the administrative law judge did not give adequate reasons for rejecting those opinions. The judge relied on findings such as Rivera’s cooperation during an examination, her social skills, her ability to perform certain household activities, and her good insight and judgment. The court found that those facts did not contradict an opinion about Rivera’s ability to maintain regular attendance at work, particularly in light of anxiety and agoraphobia. The court also found that the administrative law judge improperly treated Rivera’s regular attendance at weekly therapy and monthly psychiatric appointments as evidence that she could regularly attend work. The judge did not consider whether those appointments themselves would cause work absences.

Transportation

The record contained evidence that Rivera could not travel independently, including by public transportation, because of anxiety and panic attacks. Rivera reported that she generally traveled with someone else, and the administrative law judge recognized that Rivera consistently reported not traveling alone. The court found no evidence cited by the parties showing that Rivera could independently commute to work or that family members could regularly accompany her.

The court concluded that the administrative law judge failed to consider the effect of Rivera’s inability to travel independently to and from work. The judge had asked the vocational expert about jobs that did not require travel as part of the job but did not address the separate problem of traveling to and from the workplace.

Disposition

The court held that substantial evidence did not support the administrative law judge’s conclusion regarding Rivera’s likely absences and that the failure to consider her inability to travel independently compounded the error. The court therefore required further administrative consideration of those issues.

Pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the court granted Rivera’s motion and denied the Commissioner’s motion. It directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment for Rivera and close the case.