Newmark v. Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social Security
- Willis
- 1:22-cv-10280
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 20
Newmark v. O’Malley: Judge Willis remanded the disability-benefits denial because the ALJ failed to account for fatigue’s effects on work absences.
Shira Newmark’s claim for Social Security disability insurance benefits was sent back to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings; the court did not determine that she was entitled to benefits.
What happened
In Newmark v. O’Malley, Shira Newmark challenged the Social Security Administration’s denial of disability insurance benefits. She argued that the Administrative Law Judge’s work-capacity assessment did not adequately address her chronic fatigue, medical opinions, or the development of the record.
The court agreed that the assessment failed to explain how fatigue affected Newmark’s ability to stay on task and attend work regularly. The court found that the judge’s conclusion about the amount of time she would be off task and the likely effect on absences lacked enough supporting evidence. The court did not decide Newmark’s other arguments.
Judge Willis granted Newmark’s motion and remanded the case to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings. The court also directed the clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Newmark v. Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:22-cv-10280
- Willis
- Mar. 26, 2024
Background
Shira Newmark sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying her application for disability insurance benefits. She alleged disability beginning December 2, 2018, based on impairments including Lyme disease, depression, anxiety, and an underactive thyroid.
An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the claim after a February 23, 2022 hearing. The ALJ found that Newmark had severe impairments consisting of Lyme disease, an underactive thyroid, and asthma, but found her mental impairments non-severe. The ALJ determined that Newmark retained the residual functional capacity (RFC)—her ability to work despite her impairments—to perform light work, with restrictions against concentrated exposure to airborne irritants and machinery. Based on vocational-expert testimony, the ALJ found that she could perform her past relevant work and other jobs.
Newmark’s treating physician, Dr. Bernard Raxlen, had stated that fatigue limited her ability to sit, stand, and walk, required unscheduled breaks, affected concentration, and could cause more than three absences per month. Dr. Gabrielle Francis’s notes also stated that Newmark would need flexibility to arrive late, leave early, miss work unpredictably, and change positions during the day. The ALJ found these opinions unpersuasive and instead credited other medical opinions supporting light work.
Arguments
Newmark raised three arguments: that the ALJ’s RFC assessment lacked substantial-evidence support, that the ALJ improperly evaluated medical opinions, and that the ALJ failed to develop the administrative record. The Commissioner argued that the RFC was supported by substantial evidence, that the ALJ properly resolved conflicting medical opinions, and that any failure to discuss fatigue-related limits was harmless.
Court’s Analysis
The court agreed with Newmark’s first argument and found reversible error in the RFC analysis. The court held that the ALJ did not adequately evaluate chronic fatigue as a physical limitation, including its possible effects on regular work attendance and absenteeism. Although the ALJ included a conclusion that Newmark would be off task no more than 15 percent of the workday, the court found insufficient evidence supporting that conclusion.
The court explained that an ALJ must address functional limitations supported by substantial evidence in the record. It found that the record did not establish that a detailed analysis of fatigue’s effects on attendance was unnecessary. Because the RFC did not account for all limitations resulting from fatigue, the court concluded that the disability determination could not stand.
Disposition
The court granted Newmark’s motion and remanded the case to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings. The court declined to reach Newmark’s arguments concerning the evaluation of medical opinions and development of the record. The clerk was requested to close the case.
Read the full 20-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.