## Facts

- James Moran alleged disability beginning September 1, 1980 based on mental impairments (anxiety and depression) and physical impairments (including arthritis and serious musculoskeletal problems).
- Moran filed multiple disability applications (1980, 1986, 1987, and 1991); his 1991 claim was ultimately granted with an onset date of March 12, 1991.
- The dispute concerned the denial of benefits on Moran’s earlier 1980 and 1987 applications.
- Moran appeared without counsel in the administrative proceedings, including the hearing before the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).
- A consultative examiner in 1993 documented severe, progressive musculoskeletal conditions (including severe osteoporosis and chronic sacroiliitis) and reported marked functional limitations.
- The examiner also indicated Moran’s condition had been slowly progressive for at least ten years, suggesting potentially disabling limitations during the 1980s period relevant to the earlier applications.
- The administrative record contained gaps regarding Moran’s work history and earnings (including possible trial work and insured-status implications) and the onset/progression of impairments during the 1980s.

## Issues

1. Whether the ALJ satisfied the heightened duty to develop the administrative record when the claimant proceeded pro se in a non-adversarial disability benefits hearing.
2. Whether the ALJ adequately developed evidence on Moran’s work history/insured status and the onset and severity of his impairments during the periods covered by the 1980 and 1987 applications.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment affirming the denial of benefits on the 1980 and 1987 applications.
- The court remanded to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings.
- The court held the ALJ did not fulfill the affirmative, heightened duty to develop the record for an unrepresented claimant.
- The court identified deficiencies in the development of both medical evidence (including onset and progression) and vocational/earnings evidence material to insured status and eligibility.

## Legal Principles

- Social Security disability proceedings are non-adversarial; the ALJ must actively develop the record rather than rely on the claimant to present all necessary proof.
- When a claimant proceeds pro se, the ALJ has a heightened, affirmative duty to protect the claimant’s rights by fully and fairly developing the record.
- This duty includes probing relevant testimony and obtaining material evidence bearing on disability onset, severity, and work history/insured-status requirements before denying benefits.
- Reviewing courts must conduct a searching review of the record to ensure that an unrepresented claimant’s rights were adequately protected in the administrative process.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit required remand because the ALJ did not adequately develop the record for a pro se claimant, particularly regarding work history/insured status and medical evidence relevant to whether progressive impairments may have been disabling during the periods covered by the earlier applications.


Moran v. Astrue, 569 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2009)