Tanya S. v. O'Malley

Background

Tanya S. sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Social Security Administration Commissioner’s final decision denying her applications for Supplemental Security Income and Social Security Disability Insurance. She alleged disability beginning July 1, 2019. After an initial hearing before Administrative Law Judge David Washington, who retired before issuing a decision, Administrative Law Judge Trina Mengesha-Brown held a second hearing and denied benefits. The Appeals Council declined review, making that decision final.

The administrative law judge found that Tanya S. had not engaged in substantial gainful activity and had several severe impairments, including cervical myelopathy after disc-replacement surgery, neurogenic bladder, obesity, major depressive disorder, and acute kidney insufficiency. The judge found that her impairments did not meet or equal a listed impairment. The judge assigned her a restricted sedentary residual functional capacity, found that she could not perform her past relevant work, but determined at the final step that she could perform other jobs existing in significant numbers nationally: semiconductor bonder, circuit layout taper, and touch-up screener.

Issues and analysis

Tanya S. challenged the appointment of the administrative law judge, arguing that Acting Commissioner Berryhill lacked authority when she appointed administrative law judges. The court rejected that argument because controlling Eighth Circuit precedent held that Berryhill was properly serving as Acting Commissioner when she ratified the appointments.

Tanya S. also challenged the evaluation of medical expert Andrew Steiner’s testimony and physician Steven Jackson’s opinions concerning Listing 1.15, which addresses certain spinal disorders involving nerve-root compromise. The court held that the administrative law judge adequately explained why Steiner’s testimony was unpersuasive: it was limited, did not explain the basis for the opinion, and did not establish all of Listing 1.15’s requirements. The court likewise upheld the treatment of Jackson’s opinions because they were not supported by his examination notes and were inconsistent with other evidence, including records documenting a cane prescription but not a walker prescription and observations that Tanya S.’s gait was slow, stiff, and steady.

The court also upheld the finding that Tanya S. lacked a medically documented need for a walker. It explained that the record showed some use of a walker, but did not contain an adequately specific medical opinion identifying the circumstances in which a walker was medically necessary. The court found substantial evidence supporting the administrative law judge’s conclusion and held that the administrative law judge was not required to further develop the record regarding the walker, hand limitations, lumbar spine issues, or left ankle.

The court rejected Tanya S.’s arguments that the administrative law judge relied on erroneous inferences or improperly acted as a medical expert. The court found that the reference to caring for a dog did not require remand even though the dog died during the relevant period. It also found no reversible error in the treatment of walker use or the failure to discuss particular MRI findings, because Tanya S. had not identified evidence linking those findings to additional functional limitations.

Finally, the court rejected the challenge to the step-five finding. The court held that the evidence of 22,000 semiconductor-bonder jobs nationally was sufficient, without evidence to the contrary, to meet the Commissioner’s burden of showing a significant number of jobs. Because that conclusion independently supported the denial, the court did not decide whether the vocational expert’s testimony about the circuit layout taper and touch-up screener jobs conflicted with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles.

Disposition

The court denied Tanya S.’s request to reverse or remand the Commissioner’s decision. It granted the Commissioner’s request to affirm the decision, cancelled the scheduled remote announcement-of-decision hearing, and dismissed the case with prejudice. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright.