GONZALES v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 2:16-cv-07416

Background

Plaintiff Marggury Gonzales applied for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) alleging onset March 13, 2010; initial denial, an ALJ unfavorable decision (2012) was vacated and case remanded; ALJ Loewy issued a second unfavorable decision on November 5, 2014; Appeals Council denied review.
Medical record: lumbar MRI evidence of annular disc bulging at L4-5 and L5-S1, facet hypertrophy, ongoing treatment (epidural injections, physical therapy), complaints of chronic pain, and psychiatric treatment for major depressive disorder.
Treating providers (e.g., Dr. Martino, Dr. Hajela, Dr. Fontanazza, Dr. Bradshaw) reported limitations; state agency consultants (e.g., Dr. Simpkins, Dr. Bortner) gave more restrictive or differing RFC/mental assessments.
At the 2014 hearing, claimant testified she can sit ~30 minutes, uses a cane, is limited by pain and medication side effects; vocational expert (VE) testified that a claimant with the ALJ’s RFC could perform certain light or sedentary jobs, but would be precluded if standing/walking limited to 4 hours or off-task >15%.
ALJ Loewy gave significant weight to state agency consultants, some weight to treating doctors, found claimant’s statements not credible, adopted an RFC allowing light work with certain postural/mental limits, and relied on VE testimony to deny benefits.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Weight accorded medical opinions / "cherry picking"	ALJ improperly favored non‑treating/state consults over treating providers and ignored contradictory treating evidence	ALJ permissibly credited state experts and reasonably limited weight to some treating opinions	Court: Remand — ALJ failed to explain why treating opinions were given only "some weight" while non‑treating opinions got "significant weight," leaving the record unresolved
Credibility of claimant's statements	Gonzalez argues ALJ discounted her testimony without adequate explanation or support	Commissioner relied on ALJ’s credibility finding tied to the record and state consultant opinions	Court: Remand — ALJ did not provide sufficient rationale or supporting evidence for rejecting claimant’s statements, and relied on consultants who found claimant credible in some respects
Mental limitations / inclusion in VE hypothetical	ALJ found moderate limitations in concentration, persistence, or pace but did not incorporate them into the VE hypothetical or RFC	Commissioner contends hypothetical reflected claimant’s functional abilities and VE testimony was adequate	Court: Remand — ALJ’s hypotheticals were legally deficient because they failed to capture the moderate concentration/pace limits and related vocational restrictions
RFC development and reliance on vocational testimony	Plaintiff: record not fully developed, ALJ ignored probative evidence and thus VE testimony was based on incomplete RFC	Commissioner: substantial evidence supports RFC and reliance on VE for step five	Court: Remand — because RFC and evidentiary weight determinations were inadequately explained, the VE testimony cannot reliably support the step‑five denial

Key Cases Cited

Knepp v. Apfel, 204 F.3d 78 (3d Cir.) (plenary review of legal issues; limited review of ALJ factual findings)
Hartranft v. Apfel, 181 F.3d 358 (3d Cir.) (standard for appellate review of ALJ factual findings)
Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552 (U.S.) (definition of substantial evidence)
Consolo v. Federal Maritime Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607 (U.S.) (possibility of drawing inconsistent conclusions does not defeat substantial evidence if record supports ALJ)
Dobrowolsky v. Califano, 606 F.2d 403 (3d Cir.) (remand required when relevant probative evidence not explicitly weighed)
Podedworny v. Harris, 745 F.2d 210 (3d Cir.) (award of benefits only when record fully developed and substantial evidence indicates disability)
Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (U.S.) (substantial evidence standard and evidentiary foundation for administrative findings)