Dana H. v. O'Malley

Background

Dana H. applied for supplemental security income in February 2018, alleging disability based on fibromyalgia, depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, and myofascial pain syndrome. The administrative law judge (ALJ) found that she had several severe impairments, including post-traumatic stress disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, fibromyalgia syndrome, myofascial pain syndrome, and knee osteoarthritis. The ALJ determined that Dana H. had the residual functional capacity to interact appropriately with coworkers and the general public on an occasional basis and could perform available jobs. The ALJ therefore concluded that she was not disabled and was not eligible for supplemental security income.

Dana H. sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster recommended denying her appeal. Dana H. objected to that recommendation, arguing that the ALJ’s residual-functional-capacity finding was materially inconsistent with opinions from Michael Cremerius, PhD, and Jeffrey Boyd, PhD.

Court’s analysis

The court reviewed the objection independently to determine whether substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s decision. Substantial evidence means less than a preponderance of the evidence but enough that a reasonable person could find it adequate to support the conclusion. The court explained that it could not replace the ALJ’s factual findings with its own or reweigh conflicting evidence.

The court concluded that the ALJ adequately considered the two doctors’ opinions. Dr. Cremerius had opined that Dana H. could tolerate brief and superficial contact with coworkers and supervisors but no contact with the public. Dr. Boyd had assessed that she could tolerate brief and superficial public and coworker contact. The ALJ did not adopt every limitation in those opinions because newer records and Dana H.’s testimony better supported the residual-functional-capacity finding.

The court noted that the doctors’ opinions predated Dana H.’s hearing testimony and therefore could not account for her testimony that she could maintain friendships, communicate with a roommate, attend social engagements, and complete errands involving public interaction. The ALJ also relied on treatment benefits, normal mental-status examinations, daily activities, cognitively demanding tasks, and the ability to follow a schedule. The court determined that this evidence supported the ALJ’s finding and that it could not reweigh the competing evidence.

Disposition

Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan overruled Dana H.’s objection to the June 12, 2024 report and recommendation, adopted that report and recommendation, and ordered that the matter be dismissed. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly. It did not specify that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.