Rivero-Rosado v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Shanel Monet Rivero-Rosado applied for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, alleging that her disability began on November 5, 2017. The Social Security Administration denied both applications. After a hearing, Administrative Law Judge John Carlton decided that Rivero-Rosado was not disabled and could perform her past work as a customer service representative. The Appeals Council denied review.

Rivero-Rosado challenged that decision under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). She argued that the administrative law judge used the wrong medical listing, misunderstood the evidence when determining her residual functional capacity, made a residual-functional-capacity finding unsupported by the record, and gave improper instructions to the vocational expert.

Court’s analysis

The court reviews a Social Security decision to determine whether it is supported by substantial evidence—relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate—and whether the correct legal standards were applied. The court does not independently decide whether the claimant is disabled.

The court found that the administrative law judge used Listing 1.04 even though that listing was effective only until April 1, 2021. Because the decision was issued on May 4, 2021, the administrative law judge should have applied the newer musculoskeletal Listing 1.15. The court found that this error could have affected the decision because the newer listing more broadly defines when a nerve root is compromised, and the medical record included evidence of a herniated disc pressing on a nerve root. The court therefore required a new analysis at this stage.

The court also found that the administrative law judge misread Dr. Eric Rosenbaum’s opinion. Dr. Rosenbaum reported that Rivero-Rosado was limited in sitting for more than one hour, but the administrative law judge described the opinion as limiting prolonged standing. The court found this error was not harmless because Rivero-Rosado’s ability to sit was central to her claim, and the residual functional capacity finding included no sitting limitation.

The court further found that the administrative law judge did not properly evaluate the medical opinions. The administrative law judge found all but one opinion unpersuasive and the remaining opinion only somewhat persuasive, then developed a specific residual functional capacity without sufficient medical support. On remand, the administrative law judge could reassess the persuasiveness of the existing opinions or further develop the record to obtain persuasive medical opinions.

Finally, the court found that the vocational expert’s testimony did not support the decision because the hypothetical question omitted standing and sitting limitations that were important to Rivero-Rosado’s claim and supported by the record. A vocational expert’s testimony is useful only when the hypothetical accurately reflects the claimant’s limitations.

Disposition

The court granted Rivero-Rosado’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, denied the Commissioner’s Cross Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, and remanded the case for further proceedings under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The opinion did not award benefits or determine that Rivero-Rosado was disabled.