Al-Hassan v. BISIGNANO

Background

R. N. Al-Hassan sought review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of an administrative law judge’s decision denying her application for Title II Social Security Disability Insurance benefits. She alleged disability beginning December 1, 2021. After the agency denied her application initially and on reconsideration, she appeared with counsel at a telephone hearing before Administrative Law Judge Lisa Lunsford.

The administrative law judge found that Al-Hassan had not engaged in substantial gainful activity and had severe impairments including a right-knee meniscal tear, lumbar degenerative disc disease, obesity, depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder. The judge found that her impairments did not meet or equal the listed impairments, that she could not perform her past relevant work, and that she retained the capacity to perform light work with restrictions. The judge identified Mail Clerk, Assembler, and Table Worker as occupations she could perform. The Appeals Council denied review.

Issues and Analysis

Al-Hassan raised three challenges: the evaluation of medical-opinion evidence, the treatment of her symptom testimony, and the completeness of the hypothetical questions posed to the vocational witness.

Medical opinions. The administrative law judge found Occupational Therapist Lesa Stevens’s opinion unpersuasive. Stevens had opined that Al-Hassan could lift and carry no more than five pounds, stand for one minute, and ambulate 150 feet while performing certain activities. The judge determined that the opinion relied substantially on Al-Hassan’s subjective reports and performance on one day, and that its extreme limitations conflicted with other medical evidence, including imaging showing only mild to moderate dysfunction of the right knee and lumbar spine. The court held that the judge adequately addressed the required factors of supportability and consistency.

The administrative law judge found Dr. Alina Faramazyan’s opinion only partially persuasive. Faramazyan had found mild to moderate limitations in several areas, marked limitations in sustaining concentration, attendance, and interaction with coworkers, and an expected absence of more than four days per month. The judge found the moderate limitations consistent with treatment notes and other opinions but found the marked limitations unsupported by Faramazyan’s treatment notes and inconsistent with the record. The court held that the judge properly addressed the medical-opinion evidence.

Symptom testimony. The court explained that, after finding Al-Hassan’s impairments could reasonably cause her alleged symptoms and finding no evidence of malingering, the administrative law judge had to provide specific, clear, and convincing reasons for discounting her testimony about the severity of those symptoms. The judge relied on inconsistencies between Al-Hassan’s statements and the medical and other evidence. The judge also considered her testimony that she could perform work that was less emotionally demanding and could perform a job from a physical standpoint if she could change positions at will while remaining on task. The court found these reasons sufficient and supported by substantial evidence.

Vocational testimony. Al-Hassan argued that the administrative law judge’s hypothetical questions omitted credible allegations and limitations recognized by medical providers. The judge asked about an individual limited to light work, with restrictions on standing, walking, postural activities, workplace changes, and public interaction. The judge also asked about sedentary work and about being off task for 15 percent of the workday. The court noted that Al-Hassan did not identify the specific limitations allegedly omitted or cite record evidence showing what additional information was required. Because the judge included the limitations the judge found supported by substantial evidence, the court held that the hypothetical questions did not produce unreliable vocational testimony.

Disposition

Judge Noél Wise concluded that the administrative law judge’s determination was supported by substantial evidence. The court denied Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and remand and granted Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment.