Soropoulos v. Barnhardt

Background

Marianna Soropoulos sought review under the Social Security Act of the Commissioner’s decision denying her disability insurance benefits for the period from August 15 through December 31, 2019. She alleged disability based on breast cancer, surgeries and radiation treatment, autoimmune conditions, neuropathy, joint problems, and related symptoms. She was represented by counsel.

The administrative law judge found that Soropoulos had several severe impairments, including the effects of breast-cancer surgery, Sjogren’s syndrome, and anti-synthetase syndrome with muscle inflammation and interstitial lung disease. The judge determined that her impairments did not meet or equal a listed impairment. The judge assessed her as able to perform a limited range of light work, found that she could not return to her prior work as a physician’s assistant, but concluded—based on vocational-expert testimony—that she could perform other jobs, including marker, router, and collator operator.

Soropoulos’s treating rheumatologist and pulmonologist each gave restrictive assessments of her work capacity. Both doctors stated, among other things, that she would need unscheduled breaks and would miss more than four days of work per month. The administrative law judge found both opinions unpersuasive. Two state-agency doctors concluded that the record did not contain enough medical evidence to assess Soropoulos’s functional limitations during the relevant period. The administrative law judge described those assessments as partly persuasive but proceeded to determine Soropoulos’s work capacity without relying on a medical-source opinion.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that the administrative law judge improperly substituted his own medical judgment for the medical opinions in the record. An administrative law judge may weigh medical opinions and need not adopt any one opinion completely, but may not reject the medical opinions and then fill the resulting evidentiary gap with personal medical conclusions.

The court also found that the administrative law judge failed to address absenteeism. The vocational expert testified that missing two or more days of work per month would prevent all work in the national economy. The decision did not discuss that testimony or determine how often Soropoulos would have to miss work. The record showed two surgeries and radiation treatment during the relevant period, but the administrative law judge did not adequately investigate how those treatments affected her ability to work.

The court further held that the administrative law judge failed to address whether Soropoulos’s impairments could be expected to last for at least twelve months, as required for disability benefits. The court noted evidence that her autoimmune symptoms worsened after radiation and continued into 2020. It determined that the administrative law judge could not properly resolve these issues without obtaining at least some medical opinion, including from a consulting doctor if necessary.

Disposition

The court granted Soropoulos’s motion and denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings. Under the court’s order, the Clerk of Court was directed to remand the case. On remand, the administrative law judge must consider whether absenteeism caused by Soropoulos’s impairments would have prevented substantial work, request a medical-source opinion from at least a consulting doctor, and determine whether the record contains radiation-treatment records. If those records are missing, they must be sought. Judge Robert W. Lehrburger did not award benefits in this order.

Classification

This is a substantive ruling because the court reviewed the disability determination on the merits and ordered a remand based on errors in evaluating the medical evidence and the requirements for disability.