Bellini v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

John Robert Bellini sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying his application for Supplemental Security Income. The administrative law judge found that Bellini was not disabled under the Social Security Act. She determined that he could perform light work with several physical and mental limitations and relied on vocational-expert testimony identifying cleaner, merchandise-marker, and routing-clerk jobs.

Bellini moved for judgment on the pleadings. The Commissioner opposed the motion and asked the court to affirm the administrative decision.

Math-Ability Analysis

The court held that the administrative law judge did not adequately consider Bellini’s ability to perform the math required by the jobs identified by the vocational expert. Those jobs required General Educational Development, or GED, Math Level 1 or 2. The record included evidence that Bellini could not perform simple counting and calculations, had difficulty adding and subtracting small numbers, and needed assistance managing funds.

The administrative law judge’s hypothetical question to the vocational expert did not include any limitation concerning Bellini’s math abilities. The judge also did not explain or resolve the apparent conflict between the medical evidence, Bellini’s math abilities, the vocational expert’s testimony, and the math requirements listed for the jobs in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. The court therefore required further consideration of whether Bellini could perform the identified jobs.

Absence Analysis

The court also held that the administrative law judge failed to address evidence concerning Bellini’s potential absences. The vocational expert testified that absences exceeding certain limits—including more than one day per month—would preclude all work. Several medical sources found moderate limitations involving regular attendance, and two medical sources concluded that Bellini would be absent more than three times per month.

Although the administrative law judge mentioned one moderate attendance limitation, she did not determine whether the attendance evidence was supported by or consistent with the record, or reconcile it with the vocational expert’s testimony. The court stated that the administrative law judge could ultimately find the opinions about absences unsupported, but she had to make an explicit finding and explain how it related to the vocational evidence.

Disposition

The court concluded that these errors were not harmless because a finding that Bellini could not perform GED Math Level 1, or would be absent beyond the vocational expert’s stated limits, could eliminate all of the identified jobs. Judge Victoria Reznik granted Bellini’s motion, denied the Commissioner’s request to affirm, and remanded the action for further administrative proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The court declined to decide Bellini’s remaining arguments, including his arguments concerning other limitations and time off task. The clerk was directed to enter judgment for Bellini and amend the caption to reflect Martin O’Malley as Commissioner.