989 F. Supp. 2d 202
D.P.R.2013Background
- Claimant Julio Leandry-Hernández (born 1967) filed for SSDI alleging onset June 11, 2008 (depression and asthma); insured through Sept. 30, 2013. Prior 2008 application denial is pending before the Appeals Council.
- ALJ held a hearing July 15, 2011; vocational expert testified claimant could perform several light, unskilled jobs. ALJ denied benefits July 21, 2011; Appeals Council denied review.
- Treating psychiatrist Dr. Manuel Brignoni treated Leandry from Aug. 2009; July 2010 GAF = 53 (moderate symptoms); July 2011 assessment reported GAF = 40 and marked functional limitations.
- State consultative psychologists (Umpierre, Maldonado) concluded major depression with moderate limits but able to do simple, routine tasks; nonexamining medical consultants (Nieves, Queipo) limited only by respiratory restrictions.
- ALJ found claimant not disabled: did not meet Listing 12.04 (mental impairments), found moderate limitations in three functional areas, and concluded claimant retained RFC for light, unskilled work.
- District court vacated and remanded because the ALJ failed to address or explain weight given to Dr. Brignoni’s July 2011 opinion documenting marked limitations and GAF 40.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claimant’s mental impairment meets Listing 12.04 | Leandry: his records show marked limits and meet Listing 12.04 | Commissioner: record supports only moderate restrictions; not meeting the listing | Court: ALJ’s step‑3 finding of only moderate limitations is supported by substantial evidence (no decompensation; consultative opinions and treatment notes support moderation) |
| Whether ALJ properly weighed treating psychiatrist’s July 2011 opinion | Leandry: ALJ failed to credit or explain rejection of Brignoni’s July 2011 RFC and GAF 40 showing marked limits | Commissioner: ALJ afforded significant weight to earlier Brignoni notes and consultative opinions; July 2011 was not addressed but other evidence supports RFC | Held: ALJ erred by failing to explain treatment of the July 2011 treating‑source opinion; remand required for proper consideration and explanation |
Key Cases Cited
- Manso‑Pizarro v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 76 F.3d 15 (1st Cir.) (standard of review: proper legal standards and substantial evidence)
- Nguyen v. Chater, 172 F.3d 31 (1st Cir.) (Commissioner cannot ignore evidence or misapply law)
- Ortiz v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 955 F.2d 765 (1st Cir.) (burdens at steps 1–5 and assessing disability)
- Rodriguez Pagan v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 819 F.2d 1 (1st Cir.) (affirm if supported by substantial evidence)
- Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137 (U.S.) (five‑step sequential evaluation framework)
- Goodermote v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 690 F.2d 5 (1st Cir.) (application of five‑step analysis)
- Mills v. Apfel, 244 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.) (claimant bears burden to show meeting a listed impairment)
- Soto v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 795 F.2d 219 (1st Cir.) (remand required if ALJ fails to address treating physicians’ findings)
- Zannino v. United States, 895 F.2d 1 (1st Cir.) (arguments must be developed or are waived)