Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Antionette DelRosario sought judicial review of the Commissioner’s final decision denying her application for supplemental security income under Title XVI. She protectively filed on February 25, 2023, initially alleging disability beginning June 10, 2009, but amended the alleged onset date to the application date at her hearing. After initial and reconsideration denials, she testified by telephone before an administrative law judge on July 15, 2025. The ALJ issued an unfavorable decision, and the Appeals Council denied review, establishing jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
DelRosario was 46 at the hearing, had a high school diploma and some college, and had no past relevant work. She testified that shoulder pain and weakness prevented employment, describing persistent problems after left rotator cuff surgery, difficulty reaching overhead or behind her back, limited left-arm use, and difficulty carrying items. She also reported back and neck pain, asthma, and depression. The ALJ identified severe left-shoulder, depressive, and asthma impairments but found no listed impairment met or equaled.
The ALJ assessed capacity for light work with detailed lifting, reaching, climbing, environmental, and mental-task restrictions. At step five, the ALJ identified housekeeping cleaner, cafeteria attendant, and routine clerk as available jobs and concluded DelRosario had not been disabled since February 25, 2023. She challenged the treatment of her subjective complaints and the RFC’s omission of limitations assessed by Dr. Sulier. The matter was submitted on the briefs without oral argument and referred for findings and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge concluded that the ALJ’s stated reasons did not adequately support discounting DelRosario’s symptom testimony. Because there was no malingering finding, the ALJ needed specific, clear, and convincing reasons. The decision’s chronological summary of objective and clinical evidence did not explain the connection between that evidence and the rejected testimony, particularly while acknowledging medical support for shoulder restrictions. The general description of back treatment as “very conservative” likewise lacked supporting record citations, an explanation of available more aggressive treatment, or a link to particular symptom claims.
The continued-smoking rationale did not identify undermined asthma testimony, explain an inconsistency, or cite evidence that smoking continued against medical advice. Physical-therapy attendance problems and limited mental-health treatment also did not justify rejecting the claims wholesale: DelRosario participated in therapy during the relevant period, providers reported limited benefit, and the decision did not connect attendance to her lifting restrictions or need for breaks. The court declined to rely on the Commissioner’s additional arguments about improvement and daily activities because the ALJ had not offered those reasons, which would be post hoc rationalizations.
The court did not resolve the Dr. Sulier RFC challenge in detail because it was interrelated with reconsideration of the symptom claims and medical evidence. It recommended granting DelRosario’s motion, denying the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and reversing and remanding under sentence four of § 405(g) for further proceedings rather than awarding benefits. On remand, the ALJ should reevaluate the testimony, reconsider Dr. Sulier’s opinion, reassess the RFC, conduct a new sequential analysis as appropriate, and obtain vocational-expert testimony as necessary. These are recommendations subject to written objections within 14 days, not a final district-court judgment.
Key Takeaways
- A summary of medical evidence is not itself a clear and convincing explanation for rejecting a claimant’s symptom testimony.
- General references to conservative treatment, smoking, limited mental-health treatment, and therapy attendance must be adequately explained and connected to the particular claims being discounted.
- The Commissioner cannot supply new credibility rationales on judicial review that the ALJ did not specifically offer in the decision.
- The recommendation calls for further administrative proceedings and renewed RFC and sequential analyses, not an immediate award of benefits.
- The assigned district judge will consider the findings and recommendations, and parties have 14 days after service to file written objections.
Why It Matters
The recommendation applies the demanding symptom-testimony standard with attention to the difference between reciting record evidence and explaining why that evidence undermines particular limitations. It also separates reasons actually given by the ALJ from additional defenses raised in the Commissioner’s briefing.
The proposed remand leaves the disability determination open. The ALJ must revisit the symptom findings, Dr. Sulier’s opinion, and the RFC together, with further vocational evidence when necessary, while the district-court review and objection process remains part of the case’s procedural posture.