Bridget J. v. O'Malley

Background

Bridget J. applied for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. She alleged that she became disabled because of lupus, Raynaud’s disease, night-shift disorder, anxiety, depression, hypothyroidism, and chronic foot pain. The applications were denied initially and on reconsideration. After a hearing at which Bridget J. was represented by an attorney, an administrative law judge issued a decision finding that she was not disabled. The Appeals Council denied review.

The administrative law judge found severe impairments including lupus, mixed connective tissue disease, Raynaud’s disease with chilblains, obesity, and a cervical spine fracture status post-surgery. The judge determined that none of the impairments met or medically equaled a listed impairment. The judge assigned a residual functional capacity for light work with limitations, including no exposure to extreme cold, vibrations, or hazards; only occasional climbing of ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; and no more than one monthly absence for lupus infusions. Based on vocational-expert testimony, the judge found that Bridget J. could perform jobs existing in sufficient numbers in the national economy.

Arguments

Bridget J. challenged the vocational expert’s methodology for estimating the number of available jobs. The court noted that her attorney did not challenge the expert’s qualifications or methodology at the hearing and therefore held that those objections were waived. The court also ruled that the objections lacked merit even if they had been preserved. The vocational expert relied on the Dictionary of Occupational Titles and his job-placement experience, and the court stated that the law did not require an administrative law judge to ask, in every case, for the underlying data supporting a vocational expert’s job-number estimates.

Bridget J. also argued that the jobs of deburrer and stuffer were inconsistent with the restriction against vibration. The court rejected that argument because the Dictionary of Occupational Titles states that those jobs involve no vibration, and Bridget J. did not provide support for her assertion that they necessarily involve vibration.

Finally, Bridget J. argued that her lupus infusions would cause more than the number of absences permitted by the residual functional capacity. The court noted that her records showed infusions at 30-day intervals rather than necessarily every four weeks, and that the appointments lasted no longer than two hours. The court also found that she had not shown that an infusion required missing an entire workday or that other conditions and appointments required additional work-preclusive absences.

Ruling

Judge Paul A. Magnuson concluded that substantial evidence supported the administrative law judge’s finding that Bridget J. was not disabled. The court ordered that Bridget J.’s motion for judgment be denied, the Commissioner’s motion for judgment be granted, and the matter be dismissed with prejudice.