Brandon M. v. Dudek

Background

Brandon M. sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Social Security Administration’s denial of his application for disability insurance benefits. He applied on May 20, 2021, alleging disability beginning June 15, 2016. The Administration denied the application initially and on reconsideration. After a hearing at which Brandon M. was represented by counsel, an administrative law judge denied benefits on October 27, 2022. The Appeals Council declined review, making the administrative law judge’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision.

The administrative law judge found severe impairments including generalized anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, cervical and lumbar degenerative disc disease, obesity, thyroid disorder, and chronic pain disorder. The judge found fibromyalgia and several other conditions non-severe. The judge determined that Brandon M. retained the residual functional capacity—the most he could still do despite his limitations—to perform light work with restrictions involving climbing, balance, environmental exposure, hazards, simple instructions, work-related decisions, and changes in routine. A vocational expert testified that a person with those limits could perform jobs including mail sorter, collator, and marker.

Arguments

Brandon M. did not challenge the administrative law judge’s use of the five-step disability-evaluation process. He argued instead that the judge failed to address the severity of his fibromyalgia at the second step and that the error led to an inaccurate residual functional capacity. He pointed to state-agency medical consultants who had found fibromyalgia severe. The Commissioner argued that the judge considered all of Brandon M.’s functional limitations, including limitations attributable to fibromyalgia, when setting the residual functional capacity.

Analysis

The court reviewed whether the decision was supported by substantial evidence—relevant evidence that a reasonable person would accept as adequate—and whether the administrative law judge made a legal error.

The court concluded that the administrative law judge’s analysis of fibromyalgia was not erroneous. Although the judge did not discuss fibromyalgia in the portion addressing step two, the judge considered it during the later analysis of whether the impairments met or equaled a listed impairment. The judge stated that fibromyalgia, alone or combined with other impairments, did not reach the required level of severity. The court held that the judge was not required to include every non-severe impairment in the step-two discussion when the decision as a whole considered those impairments.

The court also found substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that fibromyalgia was non-severe. Most of the medical records Brandon M. cited for fatigue did not refer to fibromyalgia, and some connected fatigue to other sources. The court therefore found the administrative law judge’s conclusion within the reasonable range of conclusions supported by the record.

The court further held that any step-two error would have been harmless. The administrative law judge considered pain and fatigue, regardless of their source, when setting the residual functional capacity. The resulting restrictions included limiting Brandon M. to light work and imposing climbing, postural, and environmental restrictions. The state-agency consultants who considered fibromyalgia severe reached residual-functional-capacity conclusions that were nearly identical to the administrative law judge’s conclusions. The court therefore determined that the alleged error had no practical effect on the outcome.

Recommendation and Notice

The Report and Recommendation recommends that Brandon M.’s request for judgment on the administrative record be DENIED and that the Commissioner’s request for judgment on the administrative record be GRANTED. The document states that it is not an order or judgment of the District Court and is not directly appealable to the Court of Appeals. It states that specific written objections may be filed within 14 days after service, with responses due within 14 days after service of the objections.