Ryan J. v. Dudek

Background

Ryan J. sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of his application for supplemental security income. He was represented by an attorney at the administrative hearing. The administrative law judge found that Ryan J. had severe physical impairments, including lumbar-spine disease with post-surgical pain, chronic pain syndrome, sacroiliac joint dysfunction, reactive airway disease, and asthma. The judge found that anxiety and depression were not severe.

The administrative law judge determined that Ryan J. could perform light work with restrictions, including no climbing of ropes, ladders, or scaffolds; limited climbing of ramps and stairs; and no exposure to temperature extremes, vibrations, concentrated airway irritants, unprotected heights, or dangerous moving machinery. The judge also prohibited commercial driving. Because Ryan J. could not perform his past work as a welder or house repairer, the analysis reached the fifth step, where the administrative law judge found that he could perform other jobs existing in significant numbers nationally: merchandise marker, collator operator, and router. The administrative law judge therefore found him not disabled, and the Appeals Council denied review.

Issues and analysis

Ryan J. appeared to argue that the administrative law judge erred by finding that his spinal and mental impairments did not meet or medically equal listed impairments and by adopting a residual functional capacity that was not supported by substantial evidence. Residual functional capacity means the most a person can still do despite physical or mental limitations.

For the spinal condition, the magistrate judge concluded that Ryan J. had not shown the muscle weakness, nerve-root findings, upper-extremity limitations, or documented need for an assistive device required by Listing 1.15. The record included findings of normal strength and gait and a statement that Ryan J. denied using an assistive device. The magistrate judge also concluded that substantial evidence supported the finding that Ryan J.’s depression did not satisfy Listing 12.04’s mental-functioning requirements. The record showed that he could understand and follow instructions, get along with others and authority figures, manage finances, care for his children, perform household chores, and prepare meals.

Ryan J. attached an April 12, 2024 medical record to his brief. The magistrate judge concluded that the record was not material because it did not show that it related back to Ryan J.’s condition on or before the administrative law judge’s August 9, 2023 decision. The magistrate judge described it as appearing to document later deterioration and concluded that remand for consideration of that record was inappropriate.

Regarding the residual functional capacity, Ryan J. relied on testimony that a person who needed position changes resulting in 20 percent time off task would not have available jobs. The magistrate judge concluded that the administrative law judge did not need to rely on that testimony because the administrative law judge found that Ryan J. did not have that limitation and the record did not support it. The administrative law judge had found a medical opinion about frequent position changes unpersuasive, citing the lack of explanation for needing to sit or lie down every 30 minutes and evidence that Ryan J. could cook, do laundry, mow the lawn, care for his children, participate in other activities, and remain active. The magistrate judge concluded that substantial evidence supported the residual functional capacity and that Ryan J.’s arguments would require the court to reweigh the evidence, which it could not do under the applicable review standard.

Recommendation and procedural status

Judge Shannon G. Elkins recommended that Ryan J.’s request for relief be DENIED, that the Commissioner’s request for relief be GRANTED, and that the denial of benefits be AFFIRMED. The document is a report and recommendation rather than a final order or judgment. It states that it was not directly appealable to the Court of Appeals and that specific written objections could be filed within 14 days after service.