In Bunger v. Astrue, the Eastern District of New York recently took on a case appealing the Social Security Administration’s (SSA’s) denial of a disability benefits claim: in which both the claimant and the SSA agree that the agency’s decision was flawed.
Richard Bunger filed a claim for Social Security Disability benefits in 2008, asserting that he was no longer able to work as a New York City firefighter due to lumbar degenerative disc disease. The SSA denied the claim and Bunger later appeared before an SSA Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) at an administrative hearing . The ALJ found that although Bunger could not return to his previous job, he retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform light work, including various jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy.
On appeal, both Bunger and the SSA acknowledged that the ALJ failed to properly weigh the medical evidence in determining Bunger’s RFC. Specifically, the ALJ gave only “some weight” to the opinion of Bunger’s treating physician, simply stating that the opinion was “conclusory and not supported by the treatment record or the evidence as a whole,” without providing sufficient analysis or explanation. Furthermore, according to the court, the ALJ failed to consider Bunger’s nonexertational limitiations, “despite overwhelming evidence” of them.
The parties disagreed, however, as to how the court should address the ALJ’s failings. Bunger argued that the court should award him benefits and remand the case to the ALJ simply to determine the amount of those benefits, while the SSA asserted that the case should be remanded for further proceedings to determine whether Bunger is even eligible for benefits.
Citing the Second Circuit’s 1980 decision in Pratts v. Harris, the court noted that “[r]emand solely for calculation of benefits is appropriate where ‘the record provides persuasive proof of disability and a remand for further evidentiary proceedings would serve no purpose.'” Remand for further proceedings, however, is appropriate where there are gaps in the administrative record or the ALJ applied the wrong legal standard.
