Savitch v. Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Eric Savitch sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of his application for disability benefits. Savitch filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which asks the court to decide the case based on the existing pleadings and record. The Commissioner opposed the motion.

Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the court deny Savitch’s motion and dismiss the case. Savitch objected. The district court reviewed the portions of the recommendation to which he objected and adopted the result recommended by Judge Jones.

Savitch’s Objections

Savitch challenged the administrative law judge’s evaluation of the medical opinions in the record. He argued that the administrative law judge improperly relied on the opinions of consultative examiner Dr. Michael Healy and state-agency physicians Dr. Perrotti and Dr. Gandhi while finding less persuasive the more restrictive opinion of Savitch’s orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Marshal Peris. Savitch also argued that the administrative law judge failed to consider parts of Dr. Peris’s opinions and improperly relied on Savitch’s reported physical activities.

Medical Opinions

The court explained that the Social Security Administration must consider the supportability and consistency of medical opinions. Supportability concerns whether a medical opinion is backed by relevant medical evidence and explanations. Consistency concerns whether the opinion agrees with other evidence in the record.

The court concluded that the administrative law judge addressed both factors and reasonably found that Dr. Peris’s opinion was not persuasive. The administrative law judge cited objective evidence, including imaging studies, cervical X-rays, an electromyogram, and examination notes, that did not support the severity of Savitch’s reported symptoms or cervical degenerative disc disease.

The court also rejected Savitch’s arguments about Dr. Healy’s opinion. It concluded that the administrative law judge reasonably addressed the opinion’s description of mild-to-moderate limitations and its examination findings, including decreased cervical movement but normal gait, strength, sensation, and reflexes. The court held that the administrative law judge adequately explained why the opinion was used in evaluating Savitch’s residual functional capacity, meaning his remaining ability to perform work-related activities.

The court further held that the opinions of Dr. Perrotti and Dr. Gandhi were not impermissibly inconsistent. The administrative law judge considered Dr. Perrotti’s opinion partially persuasive and Dr. Gandhi’s opinion persuasive, based on their support and consistency with the record. The court also rejected the argument that their opinions were unusable because they were made before the entire record was completed. It found no significant intervening event showing that Savitch’s condition had materially deteriorated before the administrative law judge issued the decision.

Other Record Evidence

The court rejected Savitch’s argument that the administrative law judge failed to address important portions of Dr. Peris’s opinions. The court characterized the argument as a disagreement with how the administrative law judge weighed the evidence. Because the court’s review was deferential, it would not reweigh that evidence where the administrative law judge adequately considered the record.

The court also held that the administrative law judge properly considered Savitch’s reported daily activities, including cooking, driving, cleaning, shopping, riding a bicycle, kayaking, and lifting weights. The court explained that daily activities may be considered when evaluating a claimant’s reported limitations and ability to work. It found that the administrative law judge did not rely solely on those activities, but considered them together with medical and other evidence.

Ruling

Judge Kenneth M. Karas concluded that the administrative law judge’s decision was supported by substantial evidence, meaning relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate. The court overruled Savitch’s objections, adopted Judge Jones’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety, denied Savitch’s motion, and directed the clerk to terminate the motion and close the case.