METELLI v. COLVIN, 2:16-cv-06094

Background

Plaintiff Judy Metelli (b.1956) applied for Disability Insurance Benefits alleging disability from Nov. 26, 2012 after a ruptured subarachnoid hemorrhage and craniectomy; claim denied by ALJ and Appeals Council, leading to district-court review.
Post-surgery records note cognitive/linguistic deficits (memory, attention, multitasking, word-finding) and recommendations for ongoing cognitive therapy.
Neuropsychological evaluation (Aug. 2013, Dr. Esposito) showed below-average neuropsychological functioning on measures sensitive to cortical functioning and impairments in memory, multitasking, cognitive flexibility, and rapid verbal fluency.
A treating neurosurgeon’s later treatment note (Oct. 2014) checked boxes indicating grossly normal orientation, memory, and concentration; ALJ gave that note more weight than Dr. Esposito’s testing.
ALJ found severe impairments (post-hemorrhage/craniectomy, thoracic compression fractures), assessed an RFC for light work with no mental limitations, and concluded Metelli could perform her past work as an assistant bank manager based on vocational expert (VE) testimony.
Magistrate Judge Heffley recommends remand, finding the ALJ erred in weighing neuropsychological evidence, omitting mental limitations from the RFC, and failing to develop the record about the mental demands of Metelli’s past skilled work (and relying on an incorrect DOT job match).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ALJ properly evaluated neuropsychological evidence	Metelli: ALJ improperly discounted Dr. Esposito’s detailed neuropsych testing in favor of single-exam treatment notes	Commissioner: ALJ permissibly relied on treating physician’s (neurosurgeon) records showing grossly normal findings	Held: ALJ erred—treatment checkboxes do not contradict detailed neuropsych testing and do not provide a basis to discredit Dr. Esposito without further development
Whether ALJ should have included mental limitations in RFC	Metelli: neuropsych findings support at least mild mental limitations that must be reflected in RFC	Commissioner: ALJ found only mild limitations and excluded them from RFC	Held: ALJ erred—must include all medically supported limitations (even mild) in RFC, especially for skilled past work
Whether ALJ adequately developed record on mental demands of past work	Metelli: ALJ failed to obtain detailed info about cognitive demands of her operations/assistant manager role	Commissioner: relied on VE testimony and DOT match to assistant branch manager	Held: ALJ erred—hearing record lacked sufficient, specific evidence about the mental tasks of Metelli’s actual past job; VE relied on an incorrect DOT number
Whether VE testimony supplied substantial evidence to find Metelli could do past work	Metelli: VE had incomplete job information and used wrong DOT entry; testimony insufficient	Commissioner: VE testimony supports nondisability finding	Held: VE testimony did not supply competent substantial evidence given wrong DOT match and lack of inquiry into actual job duties; remand required

Key Cases Cited

Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (Court’s role is to uphold ALJ factual findings supported by substantial evidence)
Monsour Med. Ctr. v. Heckler, 806 F.2d 1185 (3d Cir. 1986) (court may not reweigh evidence)
Jones v. Barnhart, 364 F.3d 501 (3d Cir. 2004) (describing substantial-evidence standard)
Hartranft v. Apfel, 181 F.3d 358 (3d Cir. 1999) (definition of substantial evidence)
Rutherford v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 546 (3d Cir. 2005) (must include non-severe but medically supported limitations in RFC)
Brownawell v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 554 F.3d 352 (3d Cir. 2008) (distinguishing treatment notes from ultimate work-capacity opinions)
Cotter v. Harris, 642 F.2d 700 (3d Cir. 1981) (ALJ must discuss evidence relied upon to permit meaningful review)