Ragusa v. Commissioner of Social Security
9:21-cv-80235
S.D. Fla.Feb 15, 2022Background:
- Plaintiff Joseph Ragusa filed for DIB and SSI alleging disability beginning January 3, 2017; hearings were held in Feb. and Aug. 2020 and the ALJ denied benefits on Sept. 10, 2020; Appeals Council denied review.
- ALJ found severe impairments: ischemic heart disease/coronary artery disease, asthma, and diabetes with neuropathy; mental impairments were non-severe. RFC: light work with various postural limits, frequent foot controls, and avoidance of concentrated pulmonary irritants and unprotected heights/machinery.
- A vocational expert (VE) testified that three representative jobs (housekeeper, sandwich board carrier, cashier) exist in significant numbers nationally; VE derived job numbers by dividing OES/SOC employment totals equally among DOT occupations in each SOC group (the "equal distribution" method).
- Ragusa raised two principal challenges: (1) Seila/Collins-based separation-of-powers attack on the Commissioner’s removal protection (arguing ALJ lacked lawful authority), and (2) that the VE’s methodology and an alleged conflict (sandwich board carrier exposure) render the step‑five finding unsupported by substantial evidence.
- The magistrate judge concluded the removal‑provision violates separation of powers in principle but Ragusa failed to show compensable harm (ALJ appointment was ratified by an Acting Commissioner not subject to the removal restriction), and the VE’s equal distribution method complied with Goode; no apparent conflict warranted remand. Recommendation: deny plaintiff’s motion, grant defendant’s motion, and affirm the ALJ.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commissioner’s statutory removal protection rendered the ALJ’s decision invalid (Separation of Powers) | Saul’s protected tenure rendered agency structure unconstitutional and tainted ALJ adjudication | ALJ’s appointment was ratified by an Acting Commissioner removable at will; plaintiff cannot show compensable harm from the removal provision | ALJ appointment valid as ratified; plaintiff failed to show compensable harm; constitutional claim denied |
| Whether VE testimony and job-number methodology supported step‑five substantial-evidence finding; whether apparent conflict (sandwich board carrier exposure) requires remand | VE’s equal distribution of SOC/OES numbers among DOT codes is unreliable; sandwich board carrier requires outdoors exposure inconsistent with RFC | VE used an Eleventh Circuit‑recognized method (Goode); VE qualifications and explanation adequate; sandwich board carrier exposure does not equal "extreme" weather excluded by RFC | VE’s equal distribution method acceptable under Goode; no apparent conflict shown; ALJ’s step‑five finding supported by substantial evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, 140 S. Ct. 2183 (2020) (holding removal protections for agency head violated separation of powers)
- Collins v. Yellen, 141 S. Ct. 1761 (2021) (addressing removal restrictions, standing, and requirement to show compensable harm for retrospective relief)
- Goode v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 966 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2020) (explaining use of OES/SOC data with DOT codes and approving equal distribution as one acceptable estimation method)
- Viverette v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 13 F.4th 1309 (11th Cir. 2021) (remand required where ALJ relied on cumulative job totals without addressing that the largest category conflicted with claimant’s limitations)
- Washington v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 906 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 2018) (VE testimony and DOT may both support step‑five findings)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971) (substantial‑evidence standard for administrative factfinding)