Pettyjohn v. Social Security Administration, 1:23-cv-00422

Plaintiff Donna F. P. filed for Disability Insurance Benefits in September 2015, alleging disability from spinal fusion complications and depression.
Initial determination by New Mexico DDS found Plaintiff disabled, but later findings reversed this due to insufficient documentation.
Plaintiff's applications have been through multiple rounds of administrative hearings (three total), as well as review by the Appeals Council and remands back to the agency.
Two ALJs (Farris and Fellabaum) ultimately denied her benefits, finding that Plaintiff could perform past work as a medical assistant or similar jobs.
The Appeals Council specifically directed ALJ Fellabaum to evaluate State Agency physician Dr. Werner’s opinion that Plaintiff’s impairments equaled a listed impairment, but the ALJ did not properly address this per the district court.
Plaintiff seeks immediate award of benefits due to the length and procedural history; the Commissioner seeks another remand for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Immediate Award of Benefits vs. Remand	Sufficient record exists, further delay is unjust; benefits warranted now.	Additional proceedings needed due to conflicting evidence and possible evaluation under wrong Listing.	Court recommends immediate award of benefits due to excessive delay and futility of more fact-finding.
Use of Proper Legal Standard	ALJ failed to follow Appeals Council instructions to consider Dr. Werner’s opinion.	ALJ may have used incorrect Listing, needing further factual clarification.	Court finds ALJ applied incorrect legal standard and did not properly assess evidence.
Factual Completeness of Record	Record is comprehensive due to multiple hearings and full documentation.	Record contains conflicting evidence, thus further fact-finding necessary.	Court finds record complete; contradictions do not justify more proceedings.
Remedy Discretion	Lengthy case history and prior agency errors justify court awarding benefits.	Outright benefits are inappropriate absent legal entitlement established.	Court exercises discretion to award benefits outright.

Salazar v. Barnhart, 468 F.3d 615 (10th Cir. 2006) (Factors for awarding benefits outright include undue delay and futility of remand)
Sisco v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 10 F.3d 739 (10th Cir. 1993) (Commissioner cannot require endless proceedings for proper adjudication)
Ragland v. Shalala, 992 F.2d 1056 (10th Cir. 1993) (Court has discretion to remand for benefits even without ironclad entitlement)