Bonitati v. Astrue
Filing
23
OPINION. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie A Gallagher on 8/19/13. (hmls, Deputy Clerk)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
CHAMBERS OF
STEPHANIE A. GALLAGHER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
101 WEST LOMBARD STREET
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21201
(410) 962-7780
Fax (410) 962-1812
August 19, 2013
LETTER TO COUNSEL
RE:
Roman A. Bonitati v. Commissioner of Social Security;
Civil No. SAG-12-2755
Dear Counsel:
On September 14, 2012, claimant Roman A. Bonitati petitioned this Court to review the
Social Security Administration’s final decision to deny his claim for Disability Insurance
Benefits. (ECF No. 1). I have considered the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, and
Mr. Bonitati’s reply. (ECF Nos. 13, 19, 22). I find that no hearing is necessary. Local R. 105.6
(D. Md. 2011). This Court must uphold the decision of the agency if it is supported by
substantial evidence and if the agency employed proper legal standards. See 42 U.S.C. §§
405(g), 1383(c)(3); Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir. 1996). I will deny both motions,
vacate the Commissioner’s denial of benefits, and remand this matter for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion. This letter explains my rationale.
Mr. Bonitati filed his claim for benefits on June 12, 2008, alleging disability beginning
on January 2, 2005. (Tr. 12, 123-24). His claims were denied initially on September 30, 2008,
and on reconsideration on February 25, 2009. (Tr. 91-94, 98-99). On March 17, 2010, an
Administrative Law Judge (“the ALJ”) held a hearing. (Tr. 23-49). On June 24, 2010, the ALJ
issued an opinion denying benefits. (Tr. 9-22). The Appeals Council denied Mr. Bonitati’s
request for review, (Tr. 1-5), so the ALJ’s opinion is the final, reviewable decision of the agency.
The ALJ found that Mr. Bonitati suffered from the severe impairments of obesity,
diabetes mellitus, personality disorder, and depression. (Tr. 14). Despite these impairments, the
ALJ found that Mr. Bonitati had retained the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to “perform
the full range of sedentary work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(a) except that he is limited to
routine, repetitive, unskilled tasks.” (Tr. 15). After considering testimony from a vocational
expert (“VE”), the ALJ concluded that Mr. Bonitati could perform work existing in the local and
national economy, and that he therefore was not disabled. (Tr. 18). The ALJ made an
alternative finding that Mr. Bonitati was not disabled pursuant to Medical-Vocational Rule
201.21. Id.
Remand is warranted because the ALJ failed to apply the required “special technique” for
evaluating the severity of mental impairments and whether an impairment meets or medically
equals a listing. That technique is set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a; Rabbers v. Comm'r of the
Soc. Sec. Admin., 582 F.3d 647, 652-54 (6th Cir. 2009); Kohler v. Astrue, 546 F.3d 260, 265-66
Roman A. Bonitati v. Commissioner of Social Security
Civil No. SAG-12-2755
August 19, 2013
Page 2
(2d Cir. 2008) (citing Schmidt v. Astrue, 496 F.3d 833, 844 n.4 (7th Cir. 2007)). The ALJ “must
first evaluate [the claimant's] pertinent symptoms, signs, and laboratory findings to determine
whether [he or she] ha[s] a medically determinable mental impairment(s).” 20 C.F.R. §
404.1520a(b)(1). The ALJ must “then rate the degree of functional limitation resulting from the
impairment(s)” in four broad functional areas. Id. § 404.1520a(b)(2), 404.1520a(c). The ALJ
must document the application of the technique in the hearing decision, incorporating pertinent
findings and conclusions, and documenting the significant history and functional limitations that
were considered. Id. § 404.1520(e)(4).
Although the ALJ outlined the special technique, absolutely no analysis was provided.
The ALJ simply stated the degree of functional limitation in each area, with no citation to the
evidence of record or explanation of the reasons for the finding. (Tr. 15). Moreover, the
remainder of the opinion contains no discussion of Mr. Bonitati’s ability to engage in social
functioning or to concentrate on tasks. In light of the complete failure of explanation, remand is
warranted for an adequate application of the special technique. In so holding, I express no
opinion as to whether the ALJ’s ultimate conclusion that Mr. Bonitati is not entitled to benefits is
correct or incorrect.
In addition, I agree that the ALJ did not provide substantial evidence for his finding that
Mr. Bonitati had “at least a high school education.” (Tr. 17). In this case, where there is
conflicting evidence regarding Mr. Bonitati’s educational level, and when the outcome of the
question could possibly impact application of the Medical-Vocational Guidelines, the ALJ must
explain the basis for that determination. Moreover, given Mr. Bonitati’s vocational adversities
and relative proximity to the next age category as of his date last insured, if the ALJ intends to
rely on the Medical-Vocational Guidelines on remand, he should incorporate an express analysis
as to whether Mr. Bonitati’s alleged “borderline age situation” would affect the applicable
guideline.
Finally, since the case is being remanded on other grounds, on remand the ALJ should
discuss Mr. Bonitati’s other alleged impairments, including migraine headaches, learning
disability, attention-deficit disorder, and schizoaffective disorder and post-traumatic stress
disorder, and relevant treatment records. It may be that, for the reasons cited by the
Commissioner, Def. Br. 18-22, the ALJ determines that those impairments are non-severe.
However, at Step Two, the ALJ should address each impairment and whether or not it is properly
deemed severe.
For the reasons set forth herein, Mr. Bonitati’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No.
13) and Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 19) will be DENIED. The ALJ’s
opinion will be VACATED and the case will be REMANDED for further proceedings. The
clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.
Roman A. Bonitati v. Commissioner of Social Security
Civil No. SAG-12-2755
August 19, 2013
Page 3
Despite the informal nature of this letter, it should be flagged as an opinion.
implementing Order follows.
Sincerely yours,
/s/
Stephanie A. Gallagher
United States Magistrate Judge
An
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?