Victor K. v. Kijakazi

Background

Victor K. sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner’s final decision denying his application for Title II disability benefits. The Social Security Administration denied the application initially and on reconsideration. After a hearing, an administrative law judge denied the application, and the Appeals Council declined review. In an earlier round of the case, the Commissioner agreed to a voluntary remand. After a later hearing, Victor K. commenced this action and moved for summary judgment. The defendant filed a cross-motion for summary judgment.

Issues

Victor K. raised three related challenges: the administrative law judge improperly evaluated several medical opinions; the judge improperly rejected his testimony about the severity of his symptoms; and the judge’s step-five finding about available work was unsupported because the vocational expert received incomplete hypothetical questions.

Medical opinions

The court applied the Social Security regulations requiring an administrative law judge to explain how persuasive each medical opinion is, including its supportability and consistency with the record.

The court found no error in the treatment of the opinion by therapist Ida Poberezovsky and Dr. Perez Rafael-Espejo. The administrative law judge reasonably relied on treatment records and repeated mental-status examinations showing, among other things, intact concentration and memory, stable mood, and organized thought processes. The court also noted that Victor K. did not challenge the finding that the opinion lacked support in the treatment records.

The court agreed that the administrative law judge incorrectly treated Elena Stukova as not being an acceptable medical source because the opinion letter was also signed by Dr. Alla Volovich, a medical source. The court found that error harmless, however, because the administrative law judge gave other reasons for finding the opinion unpersuasive, including the lack of objective examination findings and inconsistency with normal mental-status examinations.

The court also found no error in the evaluation of Dr. Barrie Jason Roer’s opinion. The administrative law judge reasonably found that the very low intelligence-test results were inconsistent with other evidence, including Victor K.’s history as a valedictorian, college graduate, and computer programmer. The judge also reasonably found that the claimed moderate limitation in adapting or managing himself was inconsistent with Victor K.’s daily activities and ability to care for himself and provide limited care for his mother. The administrative law judge incorporated other limitations into the residual functional capacity, including restrictions to simple, routine work, limited social interaction, and no fast-paced work or high production quotas.

The court likewise found no error in the evaluation of Andrea McDade’s opinion. The administrative law judge reasonably relied on treatment records showing intact memory, no cognitive limitations, complete daily activities, and consistent punctuality and attendance at treatment visits. The judge also included relevant limitations in the residual functional capacity.

Finally, the court found no error in the evaluation of Dr. Mika Handelman’s opinion. Although the court rejected the administrative law judge’s suggestion that the use of leading questions by Victor K.’s attorney, by itself, showed bias, it found that the judge had other supported reasons for discounting the opinion. Those reasons included treatment records showing normal mental-status examinations and improvement with medication, as well as the fact that Dr. Handelman had not examined Victor K.

Victor K.’s testimony

The court held that the administrative law judge identified specific testimony and gave clear reasons for discounting it. Victor K. testified that he made many mistakes, forgot everything, had trouble concentrating, spent most of his time at home in bed, and rarely went out except to buy groceries. The administrative law judge compared that testimony with treatment records showing intact concentration and memory and reports that Victor K. walked 10,000 steps per day. The court concluded that the judge could reasonably find those records inconsistent with Victor K.’s description of spending most of his time in bed.

Hypothetical questions and disposition

Because the court found no error in the administrative law judge’s evaluation of the medical opinions or testimony, it also rejected Victor K.’s argument that the judge failed to ask the vocational expert complete hypothetical questions.

The court DENIED Victor K.’s motion for summary judgment and GRANTED the defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment.