James A. v. SAUL

Background

James A. sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of a final decision denying his application for disability insurance benefits. He had previously received a closed period of disability from January 4, 2011, through December 31, 2012. For the later period, the administrative law judge found that James A. had severe degenerative disc disease and spinal osteoarthritis, but retained the residual functional capacity (RFC)—the ability to work despite medical limitations—to perform light work with restrictions. Those restrictions included the option to alternate sitting and standing hourly, limited climbing and postural activities, and avoiding concentrated exposure to unprotected heights and heavy machinery. The administrative law judge found that he could not perform his past work as a sheet metal worker but could perform other jobs, including price marker, routing clerk, and garment sorter.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. James A. argued that the administrative law judge improperly rejected the July 2017 assessment by Dr. Rehwaldt and Nurse Practitioner Pope, improperly discounted his testimony about pain, falls, and other limitations, and lacked authority because the administrative law judge was not properly appointed under the Constitution’s Appointments Clause.

Medical-opinion challenge

Dr. Rehwaldt and Nurse Practitioner Pope opined that James A. could not perform even sedentary work, needed a cane, would be off task for more than 30 percent of the workday, and would miss at least four workdays each month. The administrative law judge gave that assessment little weight.

The court held that the administrative law judge gave specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence. The administrative law judge relied on Dr. Benrazavi’s consultative examination, which found normal unassisted gait, nearly full strength, no atrophy, and generally normal orthopedic findings. The court also noted that later treatment records largely reported intact gait and strength, no focal neurological deficits, and improved balance, coordination, and strength during physical therapy. The court found that the check-box assessment was not adequately reconciled with those findings or with James A.’s statements that medication controlled his pain and improved his activity level. The court also noted that the vocational expert testified that the identified jobs could be performed even if the hypothetical worker needed a cane.

Symptom testimony

James A. testified that pain in his neck, back, hip, and leg prevented him from working; that his leg buckled and caused falls; that he could stand for only 20 to 30 minutes; and that he needed to lie down during the day for extended periods. The administrative law judge found these statements inconsistent with the objective medical evidence and with the history and effectiveness of his treatment.

The court upheld that analysis. It cited examinations showing largely normal gait, strength, and neurological findings, no muscle atrophy, and treatment records that did not corroborate the reported frequency of falls. The court also agreed that the treatment was conservative during the relevant period because it consisted of outpatient care, medication, physical therapy, and weight-management advice, without additional surgery or epidural injections. The court found significant that James A. repeatedly reported that medication controlled or reduced his pain, improved his activity, and that physical therapy improved his balance, strength, and coordination. It concluded that substantial evidence supported the administrative law judge’s evaluation of his testimony.

Appointments Clause argument

James A. argued that the administrative law judge was not properly appointed under the Constitution’s Appointments Clause and therefore lacked authority to decide his claim. The court held that he did not timely raise that challenge because he failed to present it during the administrative proceedings. The court relied on Ninth Circuit authority requiring represented Social Security claimants to raise issues before the administrative law judge to preserve them for federal-court review. The court therefore concluded that James A. forfeited this argument.

Disposition

The court affirmed the administrative law judge’s decision. It DENIED James A.’s motion for summary judgment and GRANTED the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment. The court stated that the Clerk would enter a separate judgment and terminate the case.