Fabian v. O'Malley

Background

Emil S. Fabian challenged a Social Security Administration decision denying his application for Title II disability insurance benefits. The agency denied the application in August 2022 and again on reconsideration in November 2022. After a hearing at which Fabian was represented by an attorney, an administrative law judge issued a decision in December 2023 affirming the denial.

The administrative law judge found evidence of degenerative disc disease, the effects of a right shoulder tear and left wrist fracture, vertigo, and migraine headaches. The judge determined that Fabian had the residual functional capacity—the most he could still do despite his impairments—to perform light work, with limits on postural tasks, overhead reaching, reaching with his right arm, and exposure to workplace hazards. The judge concluded that Fabian could return to his past work as a radiologic technologist and therefore was not disabled under the Social Security Act.

Fabian’s arguments

Fabian argued that the residual-functional-capacity finding did not properly account for vocational evidence. He contended that the vocational witness’s testimony conflicted with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles because that source described frequent reaching as a requirement of radiologic technologist work, while the judge limited Fabian to occasional overhead reaching. Fabian also argued that the judge should have questioned the vocational witness about reaching limits, mental symptoms, and migraines, and that the judge improperly discounted his testimony about his symptoms and ability to work.

Court’s analysis

The court applied the standard requiring it to disturb the benefits denial only if the administrative law judge lacked substantial evidentiary support or committed a non-harmless legal error.

The court rejected Fabian’s argument about the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. The administrative law judge asked the vocational witness whether her testimony was consistent with that source, and she said it was. The court explained that the word “reaching” in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles does not necessarily mean overhead reaching. Fabian did not identify record evidence showing that the essential duties of a radiologic technologist required frequent overhead reaching. The judge therefore was not required to ask additional questions about a conflict.

The court also upheld the judge’s treatment of the medical evidence concerning overhead reaching. Although Dr. Niloofar Fadaki reported that Fabian had limited ability to reach over his shoulders, she did not explain that conclusion, and her report stated that Fabian did not permit a shoulder range-of-motion examination. The administrative law judge treated this as a refusal to participate rather than an inability to perform the examination. The court found that conclusion supported by multiple examination reports describing Fabian’s refusal to participate and upheld the decision not to include an additional over-the-shoulder limitation in the residual functional capacity.

The court rejected Fabian’s arguments concerning mental symptoms and migraines. The evidence concerning mental health described only mild limitations, which the administrative law judge found consistent with light work and the other restrictions. The judge considered the migraine evidence and reasonably weighed it against treatment with medication, unremarkable brain imaging, a report that the headaches were relatively well controlled, and later evaluations in which Fabian reported no headaches.

Finally, the court upheld the judge’s evaluation of Fabian’s testimony. The judge cited evidence that Fabian could move around an examination room without difficulty, participated in work and college classes, chose to work instead of undergoing shoulder surgery, had previously reported lifting twenty pounds at work despite later saying he could lift no more than five pounds, and repeatedly refused examinations of strength and range of motion. The court concluded that these were clear and convincing reasons for not fully accepting Fabian’s statements about the severity and effects of his symptoms.

Disposition

The court concluded that the administrative law judge properly found that Fabian could perform his past relevant work as a radiologic technologist. Summary judgment was granted for defendant Martin O’Malley, the denial of benefits was affirmed, and each side was ordered to bear its own costs and attorney’s fees. A separate judgment was to be entered.