Mark W. W. v. Colvin

Background

Mark W. W. sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying him Supplemental Security Income and Disability Insurance Benefits. The opinion notes that although the administrative judge identified both applications, the record contained only a Disability Insurance Benefits application, and Mark W. W. said he had applied only for Supplemental Security Income. The court stated that this dispute did not affect the outcome.

Mark W. W. alleged disability beginning February 22, 2021. After the Social Security Administration denied his applications initially and on reconsideration, an administrative law judge held a telephone hearing on October 20, 2022. Counsel represented Mark W. W. at the hearing, and he testified. A vocational expert testified that a person limited to medium work with certain postural and environmental restrictions could perform Mark W. W.’s past work as a mixer operator and laborer.

The administrative law judge recognized several physical and mental impairments, including diabetes, dermatitis, a groin abscess, hypertension, obesity, neck pain, degenerative conditions in the cervical and lumbar spine, a prior abdominal stab wound, anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder. The administrative law judge stopped the five-step disability analysis at step two, finding that none of the impairments, individually or in combination, was severe and had lasted, or was expected to last, for at least 12 consecutive months.

Arguments

Mark W. W. raised two challenges. First, he argued that substantial evidence did not support the finding that his combined impairments were not severe, particularly his mental impairments. Second, he argued that the administrative law judge failed to adequately develop the record and improperly substituted personal judgment for medical evidence concerning his back impairments. He asked the court to reverse the decision and award benefits or remand the matter for further review.

The Commissioner argued that the administrative law judge properly found no more than minimal limitations from the mental impairments and properly considered Mark W. W.’s part-time work, public transportation use, treatment response, and other evidence. The Commissioner also argued that the record was sufficiently developed, including because additional back-related medical evidence was received after the hearing and considered by the administrative law judge.

Court’s analysis

At step two, an impairment is severe if it significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities and meets the required duration period. An impairment is not severe when it causes only a slight abnormality or has no more than a minimal effect on the ability to work. The claimant bears the burden at this step.

The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the finding that Mark W. W.’s mental impairments were not severe. The administrative law judge considered Mark W. W.’s part-time work at McDonald’s, ability to use public transportation, generally normal mood and affect during some appointments, ability to follow instructions and complete tasks, and some improvement with medication. The administrative law judge found no limitation in understanding, remembering, or applying information; concentrating, persisting, or maintaining pace; or adapting and managing himself, and found only a mild limitation in interacting with others.

The court acknowledged that the record was mixed. Mark W. W. reported depression, anxiety, and difficulty interacting with people, and some appointments documented depressed or anxious moods. Other appointments showed normal mood and affect, and he reported that medication helped his mood. On the whole record, however, the court could not conclude that the administrative law judge’s finding lacked substantial support. The court also explained that part-time work may be considered as evidence of a claimant’s ability to do more work, even when the work is not substantial gainful activity.

The court likewise rejected the challenge concerning the back impairments. Mark W. W. testified that his back problems began in May 2022, and the record showed chiropractic treatment beginning in July 2022. Later imaging showed moderate narrowing involving several vertebrae and moderate to severe bilateral nerve compression, but the chiropractic records also showed some improvement. The administrative law judge concluded that the back pain did not meet the required 12-month duration and that the alleged level of pain was inconsistent with Mark W. W.’s ability to bike to work.

The court determined that the record contained enough medical evaluations, treatment records, imaging, and other evidence to support the administrative law judge’s conclusion. It found no requirement to obtain updated opinions from state-agency experts after additional evidence was received because the duration requirement could not be met based on the evidence. The court also found no improper substitution of personal judgment because the administrative law judge did not determine a residual functional capacity after finding no severe impairment.

Recommendation and notice

The magistrate judge recommended that Mark W. W.’s brief seeking judgment on the administrative record be denied and that the Commissioner’s brief seeking judgment on the administrative record be granted.

The document was a report and recommendation, not an order or judgment of the District Court, and therefore was not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit. The notice stated that a party could file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with the recommendation and that a response to objections could be filed within 14 days after service of the objections.