Peggy C. v. Bisignano

Background

The caption identifies the plaintiff as Peggy C. The opinion’s opening paragraph refers to the plaintiff as “Elizabth M.” The plaintiff sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying her application for disability insurance benefits. She alleged disability based on a low back injury.

The administrative law judge found that the plaintiff had severe lumbar degenerative disc disease, right knee osteoarthritis, and right hip osteoarthritis. The administrative law judge found that carpal tunnel syndrome and adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depression were not severe. He concluded that none of the impairments met or equaled a listed impairment.

The administrative law judge determined that the plaintiff had the residual functional capacity to perform light work, with limits on climbing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, and crawling. Relying on testimony from a vocational expert, he found that she could perform her past work as a telephone operator, both as she performed it and as that job is generally performed. He therefore found that she was not disabled.

Plaintiff’s Argument

The plaintiff argued that the administrative law judge failed to include a limitation requiring her to alternate between sitting and standing. She relied primarily on her testimony that she could stand for about 15 minutes, sit for about 15 minutes, and walk two or three blocks before needing to rest. She also pointed to examination findings involving back, hip, and knee pain, balance difficulties, and difficulty with tandem walking.

The Commissioner argued that the administrative law judge fully accounted for the plaintiff’s impairments through the light-work limitation and the postural restrictions.

Court’s Analysis

The court reviewed whether substantial evidence supported the administrative law judge’s decision. It concluded that the administrative law judge expressly considered the plaintiff’s testimony about her sitting, standing, walking, and need to lie down. The administrative law judge found that her statements about the intensity and limiting effects of her symptoms were not entirely consistent with the medical and other evidence.

The court noted that the administrative law judge considered largely unremarkable neurological examinations, conservative treatment, the plaintiff’s reported daily activities, imaging results, and the state-agency medical consultants’ opinions. The administrative law judge accepted the consultants’ postural restrictions but imposed a greater exertional restriction by limiting the plaintiff to light rather than medium work.

The court rejected the argument that the administrative law judge was required to use the exact words “alternate sitting and standing.” It held that the administrative law judge discussed the plaintiff’s alleged sitting and standing limitations and explained why the record did not support adding the requested restriction. The court also stated that it could not reweigh the conflicting evidence.

Disposition

The court stated that it affirmed the decision in part and affirmed the administrative law judge’s final determination that the plaintiff was not disabled. In the formal order, the court affirmed the decision, denied the plaintiff’s request for relief, granted the Commissioner’s request for relief, and dismissed the action with prejudice.