Butler v. Berryhill

Background

Brenda Gerridee Butler sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner’s final decision denying her application for Title II disability benefits. Butler alleged that she had been disabled beginning April 1, 2011. The Social Security Administration denied her application initially and on reconsideration. After a hearing, an administrative law judge denied the application on June 30, 2017, and the Appeals Council denied review.

The administrative law judge found that Butler had severe impairments including degenerative disc disease, osteoarthritis and meniscus tears in both knees, and the effects of a total left-knee replacement. The judge found that Butler’s affective and anxiety-related disorders did not significantly limit her ability to perform basic mental work activities. The judge determined that Butler had the residual functional capacity—the ability to work despite her impairments—to perform light work, with occasional balancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, crawling, and climbing. Based on vocational-expert testimony, the judge found that Butler could perform jobs such as cashier, ticket seller, and photocopying-machine operator.

Butler’s Argument

Butler’s sole argument was that the administrative law judge should not have relied on the opinions of medical consultants D. Rose, M.D., and B. Sheehy, M.D., because those consultants had evaluated the record before some later medical evidence became available. Butler pointed to a July 2015 right-knee magnetic-resonance-imaging scan, right-knee injections, and a planned February 2017 knee surgery. She argued that the administrative law judge improperly interpreted later raw medical data to determine her functional limitations.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that it reviews the Commissioner’s decision for legal error and for support by substantial evidence, meaning relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate. The court also noted that an administrative law judge may not act as a medical expert by independently translating raw medical data into functional limitations.

The court nevertheless found no error here. Rose and Sheehy had reviewed medical evidence concerning Butler’s spine and knee impairments. The administrative law judge then reviewed and discussed the later evidence identified by Butler, including the knee injections, the July 2015 magnetic-resonance-imaging scan, and the planned surgery. The judge also considered evidence that Butler’s gait was generally normal or unremarkable, that her pain treatment was generally conservative, and that her reported activities included preparing meals, driving, going to the gym, completing an educational program with an internship involving patient interactions, and taking a tennis class.

The court concluded that the later evidence did not show impairments or limitations more severe than those identified in Rose’s and Sheehy’s opinions. It therefore rejected Butler’s argument that the administrative law judge improperly interpreted the later medical evidence.

Disposition

Judge Kandis A. Westmore denied Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment. The opinion did not add a “with prejudice” or “without prejudice” designation.