Vellone v. Kijakazi

Background

Martha Vellone brought the action on behalf of her deceased ex-husband, Kenneth Vellone, challenging the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying his application for Disability Insurance Benefits. The opinion states that Kenneth Vellone had worked as a jeweler and alleged that severe back and leg pain caused by degenerative disc disease and multiple herniated discs prevented him from working.

The Social Security Administration denied the application. After a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge found that Kenneth Vellone was not disabled. In an earlier round of this case, the district court remanded the matter for further proceedings after finding that several of the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions lacked substantial evidence and that the judge had improperly substituted his own opinion for that of a physician.

After the remand, the Administrative Law Judge held another hearing and again found that Kenneth Vellone was not disabled. Martha Vellone then moved for judgment on the pleadings, asking the court to set aside the Commissioner’s decision.

Report and Recommendation

Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron recommended granting Martha Vellone’s motion in part and remanding the action for further administrative proceedings. The recommendation found that the Administrative Law Judge had committed similar errors by interpreting medical findings without adequate supporting evidence. It concluded that the decision was not supported by substantial evidence, meaning the record did not adequately support the agency’s findings under the governing review standard.

The recommendation also concluded that the record did not contain persuasive proof that Kenneth Vellone was disabled during the relevant period. It further found that the Commissioner could potentially develop or explain additional evidence supporting a finding of no disability. The recommendation therefore allowed the Commissioner to obtain additional evidence, including potentially an opinion from a medical expert.

Plaintiff’s Objection

Martha Vellone objected to a remand for further proceedings rather than a remand limited to calculating benefits. She argued that the Administrative Law Judge’s reliance on an independent interpretation of the medical record required the court to order a benefits calculation.

Judge Torres reviewed this objection for clear error because the same argument had been presented to the magistrate judge. The court found no clear error. It also agreed with the recommendation that the record was incomplete and conflicting. In particular, the record lacked sufficient non-opinion evidence concerning functional limitations, including consultative examinations, state-agency consultant findings, or other findings about Kenneth Vellone’s ability to function.

Ruling

The court OVERRULED Martha Vellone’s objection and ADOPTED the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The action was remanded for further administrative findings. The court did not order the Commissioner to calculate or award benefits. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 16.