Shanda M. v. Bisignano

Background

Shanda M. sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying her application for Social Security disability insurance benefits. An administrative law judge found that Shanda M. had several severe impairments, including lumbar-spine degenerative disc disease after surgery, right-limb tarsal tunnel syndrome, depression, and anxiety. The administrative law judge determined that she retained the residual functional capacity (RFC)—the most she could still do despite her limitations—to perform a limited range of light work.

The RFC included occasional stooping, certain climbing and crawling limits, environmental restrictions, and the ability to complete simple and detailed instructions in a routine work setting without hourly quotas. Relying on vocational-expert testimony, the administrative law judge found that Shanda M. could perform her past work as a waitress and could also perform work as a cleaner, marker, or information clerk. The administrative law judge therefore found her not disabled, and the Appeals Council denied review.

Issues

Shanda M. raised two challenges to the RFC. First, she argued that the administrative law judge failed to include a limitation that bending at the waist and stooping should occur less than occasionally, even though medical consultants Gregory Bartel, M.D., and Gregory Salmi, M.D., included that limitation in their assessments and the administrative law judge found their opinions persuasive. Second, she argued that the administrative law judge did not properly evaluate the supportability and consistency of medical opinions from Sakshi Kaul, M.D., and Valeria Martinez-Kaigi, Ph.D.

Analysis

The court reviewed whether the administrative law judge’s decision was supported by substantial evidence—relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate—and whether the decision contained legal error.

Stooping limitation. The court concluded that the administrative law judge omitted the less-than-occasional stooping limitation without explaining the omission. The court nevertheless held that the error was harmless. The jobs identified by the vocational expert would still have been available with that limitation: the waitress, marker, and information-clerk positions did not require stooping, while the cleaner position required stooping only occasionally, which was within the consultants’ stated limitation. The court therefore found that the omission could not have changed the disability determination.

Medical opinions. The court held that the administrative law judge properly evaluated the opinions from Dr. Kaul and Dr. Martinez-Kaigi under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c. The administrative law judge found Dr. Kaul’s opinion unsupported because it did not identify specific examination findings and was inconsistent with findings such as normal gait, the ability to walk on heels and toes, the ability to squat and rise, and mostly normal muscle strength. The administrative law judge found Dr. Martinez-Kaigi’s opinion unsupported because it lacked specific objective findings and inconsistent with evidence of intact cognitive functioning, daily activities including driving and walking her dog, and improvement with medication.

Although the explanations were brief, the court stated that brevity was not reversible error. Considering the decision as a whole, the court found that the administrative law judge discussed evidence supporting the RFC, including improvement after treatment, normal or mostly normal physical findings, and mental-health improvement with medication. The court declined to reweigh the evidence.

Disposition

The court ordered that Shanda M.’s request for reversal be denied and that the Commissioner’s request for affirmance be granted. Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.