Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Joseph Pearson sought review of the denial of Supplemental Security Income. He argued that the administrative record did not adequately address serious physical impairments and their effect on his ability to work.
The record referenced significant prior trauma and ongoing pain, but the agency lacked sufficiently developed medical evidence to make a reliable functional-capacity assessment.
The Court’s Holding
The court remanded under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further development and findings. The administrative law judge must investigate Pearson’s physical impairments and their effect on his functional capacity.
At minimum, the agency must make best efforts, in consultation with counsel, to obtain a physician’s examination capable of meaningfully informing that assessment. Pearson’s brief was granted for remand purposes and the Commissioner’s brief was denied.
Key Takeaways
- The agency has a duty to develop an adequate medical record.
- Serious impairments cannot be assessed through unsupported lay inference.
- A consultative examination may be required when existing evidence cannot establish functional capacity.
- Sentence-four remand produces a final district-court judgment and renewed agency proceedings.
Why It Matters
The ruling gives practitioners a concrete remedy when an administrative law judge evaluates complex physical limitations without adequate medical development. Requests for targeted examinations should explain how the missing evidence bears on functional capacity.