concluding that "it would be virtually impossible for the [government] in a third hearing to adduce the new vocational and medical evidence that would be necessary to support a finding that th[e] appellant is not disabled" in a social security benefits case, given significant "deficiencies in the record and the failure of the [government] to cure them in the second proceeding before the ALJ...."
How later courts described this case
- concluding that "it would be virtually impossible for the [government] in a third hearing to adduce the new vocational and medical evidence that would be necessary to support a finding that th[e] appellant is not disabled" in a social security benefits case, given significant "deficiencies in the record and the failure of the [government] to cure them in the second proceeding before the ALJ...."
- holding that the “ALJ’s reliance on this report must be considered in light of this court’s conclusion that the opinion of a doctor who has never examined a patient have less probative force as a general matter, than they would have had if [the doctor] had treated or examined him.”
- stating that a “vocational expert’s testimony concerning a claimant’s ability to perform alternative employment may only be considered for purposes of determining disability if the question accurately portrays the claimant’s individual physical and mental impairments”
- noting that in cases with no factual disputes and substantial evidence supporting a finding of disability, “it is unreasonable for a court to give the ALJ another opportunity to consider new evidence concerning the disability because the administrative proceeding would result only in further delay in the receipt of benefits.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ADAMS, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I agree with the result reached by the majority, but believe that the defining of the circumstances under which it is appropriate for an appellate court to reverse outright a district court decision affirming the Secretary in a disability case is sufficiently important to add this statement. As I emphasized in Smith v. Califano, 637 F.2d 968, 973 (3d Cir.1981) (concurring in part), a court of appeals generally should remand to the Secretary for reconsideration Social Security cases raising substantial questions concerning the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a denial of benefits. Unfortunate delays in rendering proper final determinations of disability, sometimes attributable to the judicial pro *224 cess itself, are not in themselves sufficient to justify an outright reversal of the district court and an immediate grant of benefits. A reversal, as opposed to a remand, is in order only where a fully developed administrative record demonstrates that the claimant is clearly entitled to benefits, and thus a new administrative hearing would serve no useful purpose.
In Smith , there was some medical evidence supportive of the Secretary’s determination that the applicant was not disabled. A remand would have been fitting in that case in order to allow the Secretary an opportunity to reconcile that evidence with the weighty contrary medical opinion of the treating physician. In Podedworny’s case, however, the critical issue is whether the claimant possessed the residual capacity for sedentary work. Undisputed evidence in the record demonstrates that the AU’s second hypothetical question regarding that topic rested on a proper factual basis. In response to that inquiry the government’s vocational expert conceded that the claimant could not do sedentary work. Thus, unlike in Smith , a remand on the central issue would serve no useful purpose.