Lombardozzi v. Kijakazi

Background

Massimo Lombardozzi sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Social Security Administration’s denial of his application for supplemental security income. He alleged disability based on hearing loss, allergic rhinitis, sinusitis, and nasopharyngeal carcinoma. The Administrative Law Judge found that these were severe impairments but concluded that they did not meet a listed impairment and that Lombardozzi retained the capacity to perform a full range of work at all physical exertion levels, subject to nonphysical restrictions.

Those restrictions required avoiding concentrated exposure to atmospheric conditions, unprotected heights, and hazardous machinery. They also limited him to a moderate sound or noise level and to work that did not require hearing quiet sounds, such as whispers. Based on testimony from a vocational expert, the Administrative Law Judge found that Lombardozzi could perform work as a hand packager, laundry laborer, or cook’s helper.

The opinion notes that Martin O’Malley became Commissioner on December 20, 2023, and was substituted for former Acting Commissioner Kilolo Kijakazi. The Clerk was directed to amend the official caption accordingly.

Lombardozzi’s Arguments

Lombardozzi challenged the residual functional capacity finding, arguing that the Administrative Law Judge underestimated the severity of his hearing loss, improperly found that he could perform work at all exertion levels, and failed to conduct the function-by-function analysis described in Social Security Ruling 96-8p. He also argued that the jobs identified by the vocational expert were incompatible with his hearing limitations and that the hypothetical questions posed to the expert did not include all of his limitations.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied deferential substantial-evidence review. It held that the record supported the finding that Lombardozzi had moderate, rather than marked or severe, hearing loss for purposes of the work assessment. The court relied on treatment records, audiograms, consultative examination evidence, state-agency medical assessments, balance testing, Lombardozzi’s daily activities, and his ability to communicate during the hearing by telephone.

The court also held that the Administrative Law Judge did not need to perform an explicit function-by-function analysis because the decision addressed all relevant limitations and otherwise provided an adequate basis for judicial review. The court found substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that Lombardozzi could perform work at all exertion levels with the stated restrictions.

The court recognized that the hand-packager job involved a loud noise level exceeding the moderate-noise restriction. It nevertheless found no basis for remand because the laundry-laborer and cook’s-helper jobs required a moderate noise level and had estimated national job numbers of approximately 15,000 to 16,000 and 19,000 to 20,000, respectively. The court concluded that these jobs were sufficient to meet the Commissioner’s burden at the fifth step of the disability analysis. It further held that the vocational expert’s testimony and the hypothetical questioning were adequate because they were based on a residual functional capacity finding supported by substantial evidence.

Disposition

The Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, and Lombardozzi’s motion was denied. The court found no legal error warranting a remand, directed the Clerk to terminate the pending motions, and closed the case.