Eric C.T. v. O'Malley

Background

Eric C.T. applied for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits in July 2020. The Commissioner of Social Security denied the application, and Eric, represented by counsel, sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3).

On February 5, 2024, the court granted Eric judgment on the pleadings and ordered a remand for further administrative proceedings. The court had found that the administrative law judge did not adequately explain why he considered the opinion of Dr. Louis Rose, Eric’s long-term treating orthopedic surgeon, “not persuasive.” The court also found that the administrative law judge failed to conduct a function-by-function assessment of Eric’s residual functional capacity and did not properly evaluate Eric’s subjective complaints.

The earlier order directed the administrative law judge to give proper consideration to the medical opinion evidence, assess Eric’s residual functional capacity function by function, and appropriately evaluate his subjective complaints. It also stated that, if the administrative law judge believed Dr. Rose’s assessments were insufficiently supported, he was obligated to contact Dr. Rose for clarification.

Rule 59(e) Motion

The Commissioner moved under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to alter or amend the judgment. A Rule 59(e) motion may be granted for an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. The Commissioner did not identify new evidence or a change in the law, so the court considered whether its earlier decision contained a clear legal error.

The Commissioner did not challenge the remand itself. Instead, the Commissioner argued that the direction to obtain an updated opinion from Dr. Rose improperly limited the administrative law judge’s discretion to resolve problems in the record. The Commissioner also argued that the court placed too much emphasis on Dr. Rose’s treating relationship with Eric and his orthopedic specialty, because newer regulations emphasize the supportability and consistency of medical opinions.

Court’s Analysis

The court rejected those arguments. It clarified that the earlier order did not require the administrative law judge to contact Dr. Rose if, on remand, Dr. Rose’s assessments were found to be supported by and consistent with the treatment record. Contact would be required if the administrative law judge concluded that the assessments were insufficiently supported or inconsistent with the record, because the duty to develop the record includes seeking clarification from a treating physician when necessary for a full and fair hearing.

The court also held that the newer regulations did not eliminate consideration of the treating relationship or a physician’s specialization. Although supportability and consistency are the most important factors, the regulations still require consideration of the length, frequency, and purpose of the treating relationship. The regulations also recognize that a specialist’s opinion may be more persuasive on issues related to the specialist’s area of expertise.

Disposition

Judge Gary R. Jones denied the Commissioner’s Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment under Rule 59(e). The earlier judgment ordering a remand therefore remained in place.