Julie L.P. v. O'Malley

Background

Julie L.P. sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying her application for Title XVI supplemental security income. She alleged disability beginning April 27, 2017, based on major depression and an anxiety disorder. The administrative law judge found severe impairments including generalized anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, obesity, and posttraumatic stress disorder.

The administrative law judge found that Julie L.P. had the residual functional capacity (RFC)—the most she could do despite her limitations—to perform light work with physical, environmental, and mental restrictions. The mental restrictions included the ability to understand, carry out, and remember simple instructions; perform simple, routine, repetitive tasks; respond appropriately to supervision and coworkers; perform no complex teamwork; and avoid social interaction requiring a people-rating code below 8 in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. The administrative law judge found that Julie L.P. had no past relevant work but could perform jobs such as inspector, hand packager; small-products assembler; and marker. The judge therefore found her not disabled.

Issue and Arguments

Julie L.P.’s challenge focused on social functioning. Two state-agency psychologists opined that, because of psychological symptoms, mild paranoia, and social isolation, she could interact only briefly and superficially with the public and others in a work setting. The administrative law judge found those opinions persuasive but stated that different vocational terminology was being used in the RFC.

Julie L.P. argued that the RFC failed to include the psychologists’ limitations because it did not expressly use the words “brief” and “superficial.” She also argued that the Dictionary of Occupational Titles’ people-rating code of 8 did not adequately translate that limitation. The Commissioner argued that an administrative law judge need not copy an expert opinion word for word and that the RFC and the evidence as a whole adequately addressed social functioning.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that judicial review is limited to whether substantial evidence—evidence sufficient for a reasonable person to support the conclusion—supports the Commissioner’s decision and whether the administrative law judge made an error of law. The court may consider evidence supporting and undermining the decision but may not replace the administrative law judge’s factual findings with its own.

The court concluded that the administrative law judge’s restriction against complex teamwork and social interaction requiring a people-rating code below 8 did not conflict with the state psychologists’ opinions. The Dictionary of Occupational Titles describes level 8 as the lowest level of human interaction in the labor force and as attending to work instructions from a supervisor, without an immediate response unless clarification is needed. The court also relied on the administrative law judge’s explanation that different vocational terminology was being used and distinguished a prior related proceeding in which the administrative law judge had used “occasional” interactions without including a corresponding explanation.

The court further found that “superficial” has no definition in the Social Security regulations or the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, and the state psychologists had not defined the term. It cited an Eighth Circuit decision rejecting an argument that an administrative law judge must repeat the word “superficial,” particularly where the decision addresses the quality of workplace interactions. The court also noted that the jobs identified by the administrative law judge were unskilled work, which ordinarily involves dealing primarily with objects rather than data or people.

Finally, the court found that the record supported the RFC. It cited evidence that Julie L.P. sought and maintained relationships, socialized with friends and family, and managed interpersonal conflicts, while also recognizing evidence of anxiety, isolation, and difficulties with some relationships. The court concluded that the omission of the specific words “brief” and “superficial” was not error and that the record did not require additional restrictions.

Recommendation and Procedural Status

Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright recommended that Julie L.P.’s request for reversal or remand be denied, that the Commissioner’s request to affirm the decision be granted, and that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice. The report states that it is a report and recommendation, not an order or judgment of the District Court, and therefore is not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit. It states that a party may file written objections within 14 days after being served with the report.