Mandato v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Background

Tara Mandato sought disability insurance benefits under Title II and Supplemental Security Income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. She alleged that she became disabled on November 1, 2018, because of arthritis in her knees and hips and herniated or bulging discs in her lower back. The Social Security Administration denied her applications initially and on reconsideration. After a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge denied the claims, and the Appeals Council declined review.

Mandato then filed this action seeking reversal of the Commissioner’s decision or, alternatively, a remand for further administrative proceedings. She moved for a remand, and the Commissioner filed a cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings, which asks the court to decide the case based on the existing pleadings and administrative record.

Administrative Decision

The Administrative Law Judge found that Mandato had severe impairments consisting of degenerative disc disease, right-hip degenerative joint disease, obesity, and hypertension. The judge found that diabetes, right-knee osteoarthritis, Lyme disease, asthma, and fibromyalgia were non-severe or not medically determinable on the record.

The judge determined that Mandato had the residual functional capacity—the most she could still do in a work setting—to perform light work with restrictions. She could sit for six hours, change position every half hour without a break lasting more than one or two minutes, and be off task for five percent of the workday because of medication side effects and pain. She could not crouch, crawl, kneel, or climb ropes, ladders, or scaffolds; could only occasionally balance, bend, or stoop; and had to avoid unprotected heights and dangerous moving machinery.

The judge found that Mandato could not perform her past relevant work but could perform other jobs in the national economy, including table worker, document preparer, and sorter. The judge therefore concluded that she was not disabled under the Social Security Act.

Mandato’s Arguments

Mandato argued that the Administrative Law Judge failed to resolve inconsistencies in the medical evidence and failed to develop the record adequately. She also argued that medical expert John Kwock’s testimony did not identify sufficient support for the residual-functional-capacity finding, that she could not perform light or sedentary work, and that the vocational expert’s testimony did not establish that the listed jobs accommodated her restrictions.

Court’s Analysis

The court reviewed the Commissioner’s decision under the substantial-evidence standard. This standard asks whether the record contains more than a minimal amount of evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate support for the decision. The court explained that it could not replace the Administrative Law Judge’s factual conclusions with its own unless a reasonable factfinder would have been required to reach a different result.

The court held that the Administrative Law Judge adequately considered the medical records, Mandato’s symptoms, treatment history, state-agency opinions, and Dr. Kwock’s testimony. The court found that the judge appropriately addressed inconsistencies in the medical opinions and reasonably relied on medical findings showing normal or only mild limitations in some areas. The court also held that the administrative record was adequately developed because Mandato’s attorney had been allowed to submit records and confirmed at the hearing that the medical record was complete.

The court further held that Dr. Kwock’s opinion was supported by the record. His testimony referred to exhibits in the medical file, and the fact that he was not Mandato’s treating physician did not prevent the Administrative Law Judge from relying on his expert assessment.

Finally, the court concluded that the residual-functional-capacity finding and vocational-expert testimony supported the finding that Mandato could perform work available in significant numbers. The Administrative Law Judge had asked the vocational expert about consistency with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, and the expert explained that her testimony concerning off-task time was based on professional experience because the Dictionary did not address that limitation. The court found that this adequately addressed any potential conflict.

The court noted that Mandato argued for the first time in her reply that the document-preparer job was obsolete. It found that argument immaterial because the Administrative Law Judge had identified the table-worker and sorter jobs, which together had 38,000 and 39,000 positions nationally. The court nevertheless stated that the Social Security Administration should reconsider relying on the document-preparer job in future proceedings.

Disposition

Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. denied Mandato’s motion to remand and granted the Commissioner’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court therefore left the Commissioner’s denial of disability insurance and Supplemental Security Income benefits in place.