John R. v. O'Malley

Background

Brian John R. sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Social Security Administration’s final decision denying his application for disability insurance benefits. He alleged disability beginning December 31, 2017, based on shoulder injuries, depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder. The administrative law judge also considered other issues identified in the record, including substance use and hypertension.

The administrative law judge found severe impairments including cervical-spine narrowing, a right-shoulder tendon tear, major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and amphetamine use disorder. At the third step of the disability analysis, however, the judge found that none of the impairments, alone or together, met or medically equaled a listed impairment. The judge found mild limitations in understanding, remembering, or applying information and in adapting or managing oneself, and moderate limitations in interacting with others and in concentrating, persisting, or maintaining pace.

The administrative law judge determined that Brian John R. could perform light work with additional restrictions. Those restrictions included simple, routine, and repetitive tasks performed below a production-rate pace, such as not performing assembly-line work, and only occasional interaction with supervisors, coworkers, and the public. The judge found that he could not return to his past work as a truck driver and food deliverer, but that other jobs existed in sufficient numbers in the national economy. The administrative law judge therefore found him not disabled, and the Social Security Administration’s Appeals Council affirmed that decision.

Issues and Analysis

Brian John R. moved for summary judgment and requested a remand to the agency. He argued that the administrative law judge did not adequately evaluate his post-traumatic stress disorder and did not properly account for his limitation in persistence at step three. The Commissioner opposed Brian John R.’s motion and moved for summary judgment affirming the decision.

The court rejected the challenge to the evaluation of post-traumatic stress disorder. It concluded that Brian John R. focused on one paragraph of the administrative law judge’s decision while overlooking the judge’s broader discussion of his mental-health evidence. That evidence included his treatment history, mental-status findings, reported activities, cognitive concerns, substance-use treatment, and a reported suicide attempt. The court also noted that the earliest record diagnosis of complex post-traumatic stress disorder occurred on November 29, 2022, nearly one year after the December 31, 2021 date last insured, while earlier records supported a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder.

The court also rejected the challenge concerning persistence. The administrative law judge found a moderate limitation in concentrating, persisting, or maintaining pace and included corresponding restrictions in the residual functional capacity. The court found no need to define “fast-paced production” because that was not the wording used in the residual functional capacity. Instead, the judge used “production rate-pace” and explained it with the example of no assembly-line work. The court further explained that the Seventh Circuit decision cited by Brian John R. was not binding in the Eighth Circuit and involved different wording.

Disposition

The court held that the administrative law judge’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and contained no legal error. Judge John F. Docherty ordered that Brian John R.’s motion for summary judgment was DENIED, the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment was GRANTED, and the Commissioner’s decision was AFFIRMED. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.