Catrina W. v. O'Malley

Background

Catrina W. sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying her application for supplemental security income. She asked the court to reverse the decision and send the matter back to the Commissioner. The Commissioner asked that the decision be affirmed.

An administrative law judge found that Catrina W. had severe impairments including obesity, asthma, allergies, and somatic dysfunction of the lumbar spine. The administrative law judge found that she could perform light work with restrictions on climbing, certain postures, and exposure to environmental irritants. Although the administrative law judge found that Catrina W. could not perform her past relevant work, the judge determined, based on vocational-expert testimony, that she could perform other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy. The administrative law judge therefore found that she was not disabled, and the Appeals Council denied review.

Issue

Catrina W. challenged the administrative law judge’s failure to include in her residual functional capacity a limitation requiring her to periodically alternate between sitting and standing to relieve pain or discomfort. The limitation came from Dr. Fardows Salim, her primary care provider. Catrina W. argued that without this limitation, the finding that she could perform a significant number of jobs was not supported by substantial evidence.

Analysis

The report applied the substantial-evidence standard, under which the court asks whether the record contains relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate to support the decision. The administrative law judge must also provide a logical explanation connecting the evidence to the residual functional capacity determination.

Dr. Salim completed a checkbox medical-source form. He stated that sitting itself was not restricted but checked that Catrina W. needed to alternate sitting and standing. He supported that answer by citing mild-to-moderate arthritis in the cervical spine and mild arthritis in the lumbar spine. The form did not identify other medical history, treatments, treatment responses, or functional testing supporting the sit-stand limitation.

The administrative law judge acknowledged Dr. Salim’s ongoing treatment relationship with Catrina W. but found that his form provided little explanation and cited no objective medical records. The administrative law judge found some of his conclusions consistent with light work but found the cervical-spine limitations unsupported by objective evidence. The report interpreted the phrase “mostly otherwise adopted” to mean that the administrative law judge had not adopted the remainder of Dr. Salim’s opinion in full.

The report also concluded that the sit-stand limitation was at least partly based on Dr. Salim’s cervical-spine assessment. Because the administrative law judge found no objective support for a cervical-spine impairment, the report determined that omitting the sit-stand limitation from the residual functional capacity was consistent with the administrative law judge’s findings. The report further concluded that the administrative law judge adequately considered the opinion’s supportability and consistency, as required by the regulations, and that the omission was not reversible error.

Recommendation and status

Judge Dulce J. Foster recommended that Catrina W.’s Request for Relief be DENIED, the Commissioner’s Request for Relief be GRANTED, the Commissioner’s decision be AFFIRMED, and Catrina W.’s Complaint be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The document is a report and recommendation rather than an order or judgment of the District Court. It states that it is not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit and that a party may file specific written objections within 14 days after service.