Ann B. v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Nicole Ann B. applied for Supplemental Security Income benefits on July 5, 2022, alleging that she had been disabled since June 5, 2019. The Social Security Administration denied the application initially and on reconsideration. After a hearing, Administrative Law Judge Robert Gonzalez denied the application on April 10, 2024. The Appeals Council denied review on December 20, 2024, making the administrative law judge’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision.

The administrative law judge found severe impairments including bipolar disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, learning disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, cardiomyopathy, and headache disorder. He found that Nicole Ann B. could perform a limited range of light work, including simple instructions and only occasional interaction with supervisors and coworkers, with no interaction with the general public. He found that she had no past relevant work but could perform jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy, including mail clerk, router, and housekeeping cleaner.

Nicole Ann B., represented by counsel, filed this federal case seeking review of the benefits denial. She moved for remand for further administrative proceedings.

The court’s analysis

Nicole Ann B. argued that the administrative law judge improperly evaluated the opinions of Dr. Anita Kaw, her primary care physician, and Dr. Mukesh Jhaveri, a neurologist. Dr. Kaw described limitations including being off-task at least 25 percent of the workday and missing more than four days of work per month. Dr. Jhaveri described serious or marked limitations in several areas of mental functioning. The administrative law judge found Dr. Kaw’s opinion partially persuasive and Dr. Jhaveri’s opinion generally unpersuasive.

The court concluded that the residual functional capacity determination was supported by substantial evidence, meaning relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate. The court relied on other medical opinions, treatment records, mental-status examinations, and Nicole Ann B.’s reported daily activities. It also noted that the administrative law judge imposed more restrictions than some consulting and state-agency medical reviewers had identified. The court rejected Nicole Ann B.’s request for a different weighing of the medical opinions because the administrative law judge reasonably read the record.

Nicole Ann B. also challenged the step-five finding that she could perform other work. She argued that the vocational expert improperly relied on the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, which had not been updated since 1991, and that the hypothetical questions did not include all of her mental limitations. The court rejected these arguments, concluding that courts in the circuit had consistently accepted the Dictionary of Occupational Titles as a basis for vocational testimony and that the hypothetical-question argument failed for the same reasons as her challenge to the residual functional capacity finding.

Disposition

Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones denied Nicole Ann B.’s Motion for Remand for Further Administrative Proceedings. The court dismissed the case, directed the Clerk to enter final judgment in favor of the Commissioner, and directed the Clerk to close the file. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.

Effect

The Commissioner’s denial of Supplemental Security Income benefits remained in place for the period from July 5, 2022, through April 10, 2024, as addressed in the administrative law judge’s decision.