Leviev v. Dudek

Background

Asia Leviev appealed the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying her application for Social Security disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. She alleged that she became disabled on March 1, 2021, because of pseudotumor cerebri or idiopathic intracranial hypertension, chronic pain syndrome, Tarlov cysts, cervical degenerative disc disease, foot osteoarthritis, hallux valgus, plantar fasciitis, and common variable immunodeficiency.

The administrative law judge found that Leviev had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since her alleged onset date and had several severe impairments. The judge found that her impairments did not meet or equal the listed impairments in the regulations. The judge determined that Leviev retained the residual functional capacity—the most she could still do despite her limitations—to perform light work with restrictions, including no climbing of ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; only occasional climbing of ramps and stairs; and limited balancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, and crawling. She also had to avoid concentrated exposure to unprotected heights and moving machinery.

Based on vocational expert testimony, the administrative law judge found that Leviev could perform her past relevant work as a registered nurse and was not disabled under the Social Security Act. The Appeals Council denied review, making the administrative law judge’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision.

Leviev’s Arguments

Leviev sought summary judgment and asked the court to reverse the Commissioner’s decision and either award benefits or send the case back for further administrative proceedings. She argued that the administrative law judge improperly evaluated medical opinion evidence, improperly discounted her testimony about the intensity and effects of her symptoms, and relied on vocational expert testimony that was based on an incomplete hypothetical question.

The Commissioner argued that the administrative law judge reasonably evaluated the medical opinions and Leviev’s testimony and that the step-five challenge depended on Leviev’s other arguments.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that the administrative law judge properly found Dr. Levin’s opinions unpersuasive. A medical source’s statement that a claimant is disabled or unable to work is not considered valuable or persuasive under the applicable regulation, and the administrative law judge did not need to analyze that type of statement. However, statements about functional abilities and limitations are medical opinions and must be evaluated.

The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the administrative law judge’s evaluation of Dr. Levin’s opinions. The administrative law judge reasonably found that the opinions lacked adequate explanations and did not provide a function-by-function assessment of Leviev’s abilities. The administrative law judge also reasonably found that the opinions were inconsistent with treatment records showing improvement in Leviev’s pain, headaches, vision, and intracranial hypertension, as well as records concerning treatment for common variable immunodeficiency.

The court also held that the administrative law judge gave clear and convincing reasons for discounting Leviev’s testimony about her symptoms and limitations. The court cited treatment records showing improvement in her foot and back pain, controlled intracranial hypertension, improved walking ability, and vision of 20/25 with full visual fields. The court also agreed that Leviev’s reported activities, including light grocery shopping and carrying eggs, bread, and milk, were reasonably considered inconsistent with the severity of limitations she described. The court further accepted the administrative law judge’s consideration of the treatment record, including Leviev’s refusal to participate in previously helpful treatment for common variable immunodeficiency and to use recommended treatment approaches.

Finally, the court rejected Leviev’s challenge to the vocational expert testimony. Because the administrative law judge properly evaluated Dr. Levin’s opinions and Leviev’s testimony, the hypothetical question given to the vocational expert was based on a correct residual functional capacity assessment. The court therefore found no reversible error in the vocational analysis.

Disposition

The court DENIED Leviev’s motion for summary judgment and AFFIRMED the Commissioner’s determination denying benefits.