Cordero v. Kijakazi

Background

Noel Cordero sought judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner’s final decision denying his application for supplemental security income. He initially applied for both supplemental security income and disability insurance benefits, but at his administrative hearing he asked to dismiss the disability insurance claim and proceed only with the supplemental security income claim. The administrative law judge granted those requests and denied the supplemental security income claim. The Appeals Council later denied review, making the administrative law judge’s decision final.

The administrative law judge found that Cordero was disabled while using alcohol and benzodiazepines. The judge then evaluated whether his substance use was material to the disability determination by considering whether he would still be disabled if he stopped using those substances. The judge found that, while sober, Cordero had severe depressive or bipolar disorders, anxiety disorder, and substance-use disorder in partial remission, but that his impairments did not meet the regulatory criteria for disability. The judge determined that Cordero could perform simple and routine work with occasional contact with supervisors and less-than-occasional contact with coworkers and the public. Relying on vocational-expert testimony, the judge found that he could perform jobs such as automobile detailer, laborer, and industrial cleaner. The judge therefore concluded that Cordero was not disabled while sober.

Cordero’s Arguments

Cordero argued that the administrative law judge failed to use the required method for evaluating mental impairments. He also argued that the judge failed to consider all relevant evidence when determining his residual functional capacity, or RFC—the most work a claimant can do despite his limitations. Cordero specifically challenged the treatment of his concentration, self-management, ability to perform unskilled work, and obesity-related limitations. He relied substantially on the opinion of treating psychiatrist Dr. Judith Shay.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that any error in the administrative law judge’s first analysis—concerning Cordero’s condition while using substances—was harmless because that analysis already found him disabled. The court therefore focused on the analysis of his condition while sober.

The court found that the administrative law judge did not properly apply the required mental-impairment evaluation method at step two. In particular, the judge did not discuss Cordero’s attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder symptoms while sober and did not rate his functional limitations at that step. The court nevertheless held that the error was harmless because the judge considered those symptoms at later steps, including when assessing Cordero’s limitations in concentration and self-management. Cordero also did not argue that those impairments should have been classified as severe or identify evidence establishing that they were severe.

The court found that the administrative law judge correctly evaluated the mental-impairment criteria at step three. The judge rated Cordero as having moderate limitations in understanding, concentration, self-management, and interaction with others while sober. The court concluded that the medical records, treatment records, emergency-room visits, medical opinions, and Cordero’s testimony provided substantial evidence for the finding that his impairments did not meet or equal the applicable regulatory listings.

The court also upheld the administrative law judge’s treatment of Dr. Shay’s opinions. The judge found those opinions insufficiently supported because they relied primarily on Cordero’s reports about a job he had left in 2012 rather than observations from the time of the evaluations. The judge also found that the opinions were inconsistent with the longer-term record. The court concluded that the judge had substantial evidence for finding Dr. Shay’s opinions unpersuasive.

The court rejected Cordero’s challenges to the RFC. It concluded that the limitation to simple and routine work adequately addressed his moderate limitations in concentration and self-management, even though the administrative law judge did not expressly repeat those categories while formulating the RFC. Because the RFC was supported by substantial evidence, the hypothetical questions posed to the vocational expert were also proper. The court further held that moderate functional limitations did not by themselves prevent unskilled work, and Cordero had not identified persuasive evidence requiring greater work restrictions. Finally, the court found no error in omitting obesity-related restrictions because the record contained no evidence that obesity caused physical limitations affecting his ability to work.

Disposition

Judge Sarah Netburn denied Cordero’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the action with prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 12.