Cody H. v. Bisignano

Background

Cody H. sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying his application for Supplemental Security Income. Cody H. had received child SSI benefits based on disability, but the Social Security Administration determined that he was no longer disabled under the adult disability rules beginning September 1, 2021. After a hearing, an administrative law judge found that Cody H. had bipolar disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, social anxiety disorder, and intellectual disability, but retained the ability to perform work at all physical exertion levels with limits to simple instructions, simple work-related decisions, occasional changes in routine, and occasional interaction with supervisors, coworkers, and the public.

The administrative law judge found that Cody H. could perform representative jobs including laundry worker, kitchen helper, and stores laborer. The Appeals Council denied further review, making the administrative law judge’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision.

Cody H.’s arguments

Cody H. argued that the administrative law judge improperly evaluated the opinions of psychological consultants Mark Lysne and Dion Darveaux. He contended that the residual functional capacity—the most a person can still do in a work setting—did not account for his intellectual and psychological limitations, his test results, his education, or the support he received from family in what he described as a structured living environment. He also argued that the administrative law judge failed to explain how he could complete job training if the work allowed only occasional contact with other people.

Court’s analysis

The court applied the substantial-evidence standard, which asks whether the administrative record contains enough relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept it as supporting the agency’s decision. The court held that the administrative law judge adequately considered the supportability and consistency of the medical opinions.

The court upheld the decision to treat Dr. Darveaux’s most restrictive opinion as unpersuasive. That opinion stated that Cody H.’s ability to interact with others was severely diminished and that his ability to obtain and maintain employment without significant direct supervision was extremely impaired. The administrative law judge found those limitations inconsistent with Cody H.’s reported activities, including playing neighborhood sports, fishing, playing video games, preparing some meals, and performing household chores. The administrative law judge also relied on other medical records and Dr. Lysne’s opinion.

The court also found no error in the treatment of Dr. Lysne’s opinion as generally persuasive. Dr. Lysne concluded that Cody H. could understand simple entry-level instructions, but would have difficulty with more complex instructions, might need supervision when learning complex tasks, could have some difficulty maintaining persistence and pace, and could have occasional difficulty interacting effectively with others. The court explained that the administrative law judge was not required to include every limitation mentioned in that opinion in the residual functional capacity finding.

The court rejected Cody H.’s argument that the administrative law judge failed to account for a structured living environment. It distinguished cases involving claimants who needed intensive one-to-one supervision, had legal guardians, could not go into the community without another person, or required substantial help with personal care. The court found that the record here showed that Cody H. could perform personal care and household activities and could participate in some activities outside the home. Although the court described the issue as a close call, it concluded that substantial evidence supported the residual functional capacity without additional structured-environment limitations.

The court also rejected the job-training argument. It found that Cody H. had not adequately explained why the identified jobs required more than occasional contact during training. The vocational expert’s testimony did not establish that the training necessarily required more than occasional interaction, and the court concluded that this argument did not support reversal or remand.

Recommendation and procedural status

Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright recommended that Cody H.’s request for reversal or remand be denied, that the Commissioner’s request for dismissal be granted, and that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice. The report and recommendation expressly stated that it was not an order or judgment of the District Court and was not directly appealable to the Court of Appeals. The notice allowed the parties to file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with the report and recommendation, subject to the local rules.