Peggy C. v. Bisignano

Background

Peggy C. 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 severe lumbar degenerative disc disease, right knee osteoarthritis, and right hip osteoarthritis. The judge found carpal tunnel syndrome and an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depression, but determined those impairments were not severe.

The administrative law judge found that Peggy C. had the residual functional capacity to perform light work, with limits on climbing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, and crawling. The judge found that she could perform her past work as a telephone operator and therefore was not disabled. The Appeals Council denied review.

Arguments and Analysis

Peggy C. argued that the administrative law judge failed to include a limitation allowing her to alternate between sitting and standing. She relied primarily on her testimony that she could stand or sit for only about 15 minutes before experiencing pain, numbness, or other symptoms. She also relied on examination findings documenting back, hip, and knee pain, balance difficulties, and difficulty with tandem walking.

The Commissioner argued that the administrative law judge fully accounted for her impairments by limiting her to light work with postural restrictions. The court explained that the administrative law judge expressly considered Peggy C.’s testimony but 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 stability of the condition shown by imaging, activities of daily living, and state-agency medical consultants’ opinions. The court also noted that no treatment provider had offered an opinion imposing greater functional restrictions. Although the administrative law judge did not use the exact words “alternate sitting and standing,” the court found that the judge discussed the claimed sitting and standing limitations and adequately explained why the requested restrictions were not adopted. The court stated that it could not reweigh the conflicting evidence.

Ruling

Judge Foster concluded that the administrative law judge did not err in determining Peggy C.’s residual functional capacity and that the finding that she was not disabled was supported by substantial evidence. The opinion states that the court affirmed the decision in part and affirmed the administrative law judge’s final determination that Peggy C. was not disabled. The order affirmed the decision, denied Peggy C.’s request for relief, granted the Commissioner’s request for relief, and dismissed the matter with prejudice.