Shawna S. v. King

Background

Shawna S. sought review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Acting Commissioner for Social Security’s final decision denying her applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. She alleged disability beginning October 30, 2019, based on several physical and mental conditions.

The administrative law judge found severe impairments including lumbar degenerative disc disease, carpal tunnel syndrome, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, obesity, idiopathic tachycardia, major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, alcohol use disorder, and marijuana abuse. The judge determined that Shawna S. could perform sedentary work with several restrictions, including simple, routine, and repetitive tasks; no public interaction; limited interaction with supervisors and coworkers; and no rapid assembly-line work. The judge found that she could not perform her past relevant work but could perform jobs such as document preparer, inspector, or assembler. The Appeals Council denied review, making the administrative law judge’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision for judicial review.

Issues and Analysis

Shawna S. raised three arguments.

1. Consideration of alcohol use disorder and marijuana use in the residual functional capacity. Shawna S. argued that because the administrative law judge classified these conditions as severe impairments, the judge had to explain how they affected her workplace abilities. The court recognized that a severe impairment imposes limitations, but concluded that any failure to connect these conditions to specific restrictions was harmless. Shawna S. had not received specialized treatment for those conditions, had not identified an actual limitation caused by them, and had not shown evidence linking them to absenteeism. The court also concluded that routine references in treatment notes to marijuana and alcohol use did not establish a work-related limitation.

2. Whether drug addiction or alcoholism materially contributed to disability. Shawna S. argued that the administrative law judge should have decided whether her substance use was a contributing factor material to the disability determination under 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1535 and 416.935. The court explained that this analysis is required only after a claimant is found disabled. Because the administrative law judge found that Shawna S. was not disabled, the judge was not required to perform that analysis.

3. Omission of an alcohol-free-workplace restriction. Shawna S. argued that the administrative law judge should have included the restriction recommended by Michael Lace, Psy.D., even though the judge found his opinion generally persuasive. The court explained that an administrative law judge need not adopt every limitation in a medical opinion and must instead consider all relevant evidence. The court found substantial evidence supporting omission of the restriction because the record did not show that alcohol use disorder affected Shawna S.’s ability to work. The court also concluded that adding the restriction would not have changed the result because the identified jobs did not involve exposure to alcohol.

Recommendation and Effect

Judge Docherty recommended that the relief requested in Shawna S.’s brief be denied, that the relief requested in the Commissioner’s brief be granted, that the Commissioner’s final decision be affirmed, and that judgment be entered accordingly.

This document is a report and recommendation, not an order or judgment of the District Court. The notice states that it is not directly appealable to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and that written objections could be filed within fourteen days.