Social services – Disability

Listen to this article

Where an administrative law judge found a plaintiff not to be not eligible for disability benefits pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §405(g), the ALJ did not err by failing to discuss records of the plaintiff’s post-concussive headache syndrome in more detail, as the ALJ’s decision demonstrates that he considered reports and evaluations of that issue, while the plaintiff’s medical records support a determination that her post-concussive headache syndrome is not a severe impairment.

Affirmed.

“[Plaintiff Lea] Rodrigues applied for supplemental security income on October 8, 2020, alleging disability beginning August 1, 2018, that included anxiety, depression, deep vein thrombosis (‘DVT’), and pulmonary embolism. …

“Rodrigues argues that the ALJ erred by (1) basing his RFC finding on a lay interpretation of medical records received after the state agency’s last file review; (2) failing to address Rodrigues’s post concussive headache syndrome as identified by Dr. [Stehanie] Green; and (3) basing his decision to deny benefits on [vocational expert (VE)] testimony that relied upon an improper hypothetical that the ALJ presented. …

“Rodrigues contends that the ALJ’s RFC finding is based on his own lay interpretation of over 900 pages of medical records received after the state agency file review. …

“The ALJ did not err by giving greater weight to records from the professionals who treated Rodrigues than to opinions from the state evaluators. …

“Rodrigues contends that the ALJ erred by failing to address her post concussive headache syndrome and migraines. …

“Here, the ALJ’s decision demonstrates that he considered the record as a whole, including reports and evaluations of Rodrigues’s post-concussive headache syndrome. …

“Further, Rodrigues’s records from treating providers substantiate a determination that her post-concussive headache syndrome and migraines are not disabling. …

“In sum, the ALJ did not err by failing to discuss records of Rodrigues’s post-concussive headache syndrome in more detail where the ALJ’s decision demonstrates that he considered reports and evaluations of that issue, and where Rodrigues’s medical records support a determination that her post-concussive headache syndrome is not a severe impairment. …

“Rodrigues contends that denial of her claim was based on manipulated VE testimony due to an improper hypothetical presented by the ALJ to the VE during the hearing and that actual VE testimony supports remand for an award of benefits. … The Commissioner responds that Rodrigues’s counsel mischaracterized the exchange and that the ALJ was not required to rely on the VE’s answer to counsel’s modified hypothetical. …

“The ALJ’s hypothetical to the VE was not improper because it is supported by substantial evidence in the record. …

“In sum, the ALJ’s hypothetical is supported by substantial evidence in the medical record. Therefore, the ALJ did not err even though he defined terms in the hypothetical differently than the VE and Rodrigues’s counsel. …

“For the foregoing reasons, the Commissioner’s Motion to Affirm [Doc. No. 12] is granted.”

Rodrigues v. Bisignano (Lawyers Weekly No. 02-528-25) (19 pages) (Talwani, J.) (Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-11737-IT) (Sept. 25, 2025).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.