R.R. v. O'Malley

Background

R.R. challenged the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying his application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. He alleged disability beginning April 16, 2020, based on diabetes, high blood pressure, emphysema, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, and high cholesterol. The administrative law judge found several severe physical impairments, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, hypertension, right-knee osteoarthritis, atrial fibrillation, obstructive sleep apnea, and obesity. The judge found R.R.’s depressive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, adjustment disorder, and cannabis use disorder medically determinable but not severe because they caused no more than minimal limitations in basic mental work activities.

The administrative law judge determined that R.R. could perform light work with additional physical and environmental restrictions. She found that he could perform his past relevant work as a security guard and guard sergeant as those jobs are generally performed, and concluded that he was not disabled from the alleged onset date through July 6, 2023. The Appeals Council declined review. R.R. then filed this action.

Issues and Analysis

Psychiatrist’s opinion. R.R. argued that the administrative law judge improperly rejected the opinion of consultative examining psychiatrist Dr. Stephen Simonian. Dr. Simonian had found no limitation in following simple one- or two-step instructions, but moderate limitations in several other mental work functions and a mild limitation in performing work without special additional supervision.

The court held that the administrative law judge applied the correct standard and had substantial-evidence support for finding the opinion unpersuasive. The judge reasonably found that Dr. Simonian’s largely unremarkable examination findings did not support the stated moderate limitations. The judge also reasonably found the opinion inconsistent with R.R.’s treatment records, which reflected infrequent mental-health complaints and limited, conservative treatment. The court noted that Dr. Simonian had examined R.R. only once and had not reviewed his medical records, but that this was not the sole or principal reason for rejecting the opinion.

Severity of mental impairments. The court upheld the finding that R.R.’s mental impairments were not severe. The administrative law judge found no more than mild limitations in understanding and applying information, interacting with others, concentrating or maintaining pace, and adapting or managing himself. The court concluded that the judge considered both evidence supporting R.R.’s arguments and records showing normal or mildly limited mental functioning, including appropriate interactions, generally normal attention and concentration, and no delusions, hallucinations, or suicidal or homicidal ideation.

Work-capacity assessment. R.R. argued that the administrative law judge should have included mental restrictions in the residual functional capacity assessment. The court explained that the judge had to consider all medically determinable impairments, including non-severe impairments, but was not required to translate every non-severe impairment into a specific work restriction. The court found that the administrative law judge discussed the mental-health evidence, explained the mild findings, and considered them in assessing residual functional capacity. Because R.R. did not identify a particular mental restriction that the record required, the court found no error.

Atrial fibrillation symptoms. R.R. argued that the administrative law judge lacked clear and convincing reasons for discounting his testimony that he experienced daily chest pain and atrial fibrillation symptoms with physical exertion. The court found the reasons sufficient. The judge considered that the condition was stable by December 2022, that R.R. had at one point denied atrial fibrillation symptoms and reported that his last episode had occurred months earlier, and that a later report of shortness of breath and chest pain did not show acute distress or increased difficulty breathing. The judge also considered that some shortness of breath might have been related to sleep apnea, that treatment was infrequent and generally conservative, and that R.R. stopped working because he was laid off during the COVID-19 pandemic rather than because of his impairments. The court concluded that these were specific, clear, and convincing reasons supported by the record.

Disposition

The court affirmed the administrative law judge’s decision. It directed the clerk to enter judgment and close the case.