M.M. v. O'Malley

Background

M.M. sought judicial review of the Commissioner's final decision denying her benefits application. The opinion's opening describes the application as one for disability insurance benefits, while its background states that M.M. filed an application for Supplemental Security Income on or about March 5, 2021, alleging disability beginning April 4, 2020. The claim was denied initially and on reconsideration. After a telephonic hearing on November 1, 2023, at which M.M. was unrepresented, an administrative law judge (ALJ) denied the claims on December 13, 2023. M.M. was represented in the federal case.

The ALJ found severe impairments including mild degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, iron deficiency anemia, mild neurocognitive disorder or mild major depressive disorder, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder. The ALJ found that these impairments did not meet or medically equal a listed impairment, and determined that M.M. could perform light work with additional limitations. Because she could not perform her past relevant work but could perform other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy, the ALJ found that she was not disabled. The Appeals Council denied review.

The parties submitted briefs, and the case was decided without oral argument. The parties had consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge.

Issues and governing standard

M.M. raised three issues: whether the ALJ properly evaluated her mental impairments under the disability listings, whether the ALJ properly determined her residual functional capacity (RFC), and whether the ALJ adequately developed the record.

The court explained that it could disturb the Commissioner's decision only if the decision lacked substantial evidence or applied an improper legal standard. Substantial evidence means relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate, considering both evidence supporting and detracting from the agency's conclusion. The court also stated that it must uphold reasonable interpretations of a conflicting record and may treat an error as harmless when it would not affect the outcome.

Mental-impairment listings

The ALJ found that M.M.'s mental impairments did not meet or medically equal Listings 12.02, 12.06, or 12.15. For the relevant paragraph B criteria, a claimant must have an extreme limitation in one of four mental-functioning areas or marked limitations in two areas. The ALJ found mild to moderate limitations in all four areas and therefore concluded that the criteria were not met.

M.M. principally challenged the ALJ's decision to discount consultative psychologist Tiadora Kim's opinion that M.M. had a marked limitation in maintaining concentration, attention, and persistence. The court held that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's decision. The ALJ relied on other mental-health opinions finding only a moderate limitation, the overall medical evidence, and an apparent inconsistency between Dr. Kim's marked limitation and examination findings showing no impaired concentration, including M.M.'s ability to complete serial sevens and spell “WORLD” forward and backward. The ALJ also found Dr. Kim's opinion inconsistent with her findings that M.M. had no difficulty following simple directions or understanding and completing complex directions.

The court further held that any error in rejecting the one marked limitation would have been harmless because M.M. identified no second marked limitation and no extreme limitation. Thus, even accepting one marked limitation would not satisfy the paragraph B criteria. Although M.M. also referred to Listing 12.05, which the ALJ did not specifically discuss, the court found that the ALJ's supported analysis of the same functional areas provided an adequate basis for rejecting that listing as well.

Residual functional capacity

M.M. argued that the ALJ improperly weighed conflicting medical opinions about how long she could sit, stand, and walk, and that the ALJ should have considered a later disability onset date or separate periods of disability based on an examination by Katherine Kenny, M.D., on May 24, 2022.

Dr. Kenny opined that M.M. could stand or walk for two hours and sit for four hours in an eight-hour workday, which the ALJ characterized as sedentary work. Dr. Eugene McMillan opined that M.M. could stand and walk for at least six hours and sit for up to six hours per day. The ALJ relied on reviewing physician Deborah G. Mishek's opinion that M.M. could perform a range of light work involving about six hours of standing or walking and about six hours of sitting. The ALJ described that opinion as a reasonable middle ground between the other opinions.

The court held that the ALJ reasonably addressed the consistency and supportability of the medical opinions. The ALJ relied on M.M.'s daily activities, including reported exercise, living alone, and intact daily activities, as well as generally unremarkable physical examinations, limited treatment, and the lack of support for Dr. Kenny's duration limits in the examination and treatment record. The court explained that the RFC is an administrative finding reserved to the ALJ and does not have to exactly match any one medical opinion. The court found no error in the RFC determination.

The court also rejected the later-onset argument. Because the ALJ found that M.M. was not disabled at any time through the decision date, the question of when disability began did not arise. The court additionally found that the record did not show a progressively worsening condition culminating in Dr. Kenny's examination, and it upheld the ALJ's treatment of Dr. Kenny's opinions.

Duty to develop the record

M.M. argued that the ALJ should have further developed the record because it contained unresolved inconsistencies and appeared incomplete. The court recognized that the ALJ's duty to develop the record was heightened because M.M. was unrepresented at the hearing and had mental impairments. That duty is triggered, however, when the evidence is ambiguous or the record is inadequate for proper evaluation.

The court found that the existing record was adequate and not ambiguous. The ALJ considered M.M.'s claimed concussion and cited brain scans and consultative examinations that did not confirm one. The ALJ addressed M.M.'s pain and explained why the medical evidence did not support the alleged severity or frequency of her symptoms. The ALJ also addressed fatigue and explained why it did not require additional RFC limitations. The court characterized the dispute as a failure of proof rather than an inadequate record requiring further development.

Disposition

The court affirmed the Commissioner's decision. Judge Susan Van Keulen did not order a remand or otherwise alter the benefits determination.