Johnson v. Berryhill

Background

Howard L. Johnson sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner’s final decision denying his application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. Johnson alleged disability beginning June 8, 2014. After a hearing, Administrative Law Judge Robert Freedman found that Johnson was not disabled. The Appeals Council denied review, making the administrative law judge’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision.

The administrative law judge found that Johnson had severe impairments consisting of obesity, mild to moderate stenosis at L4-L5, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The judge determined that these impairments did not meet or equal a listed impairment. The judge assessed a residual functional capacity—meaning the work a person can still perform despite medical limitations—for medium work with specified restrictions, and found that Johnson could perform his past work as a paralegal.

Johnson’s Additional Evidence

Johnson submitted declarations and other materials with his summary-judgment motion, including a declaration from treating physician Dr. Joyce Chen, applications for a disabled parking placard and discounted transit fare, applications to the Department of Veterans Affairs for home health care, and a VA disability-rating decision.

The court stated that its review was generally limited to the administrative record. It nevertheless briefly considered the materials. The court found that Dr. Chen’s declaration did not appear material to the period before the administrative law judge’s decision and that Johnson had not explained why he failed to submit it earlier. The parking and transit applications did not establish disability under the Social Security Act. The VA materials were submitted after the administrative law judge’s decision, and Johnson did not show why they supported disability during the relevant period or establish good cause for not submitting them earlier. The court therefore found that Johnson had not shown that the additional evidence was material or that good cause existed for the earlier omission.

Failure to Support the Motion

The court also held that Johnson’s motion did not cite the administrative record or federal legal authority, even though he was represented by counsel. Because Johnson did not identify specific supporting evidence, the court stated that it was not required to search the administrative record for support. The court found that this failure independently required denial of Johnson’s motion for summary judgment.

Merits Analysis

The court nevertheless addressed Johnson’s three principal arguments. First, Johnson argued that the administrative law judge erred in finding that his impairments did not meet or equal a listed impairment. The court concluded that the administrative law judge properly considered the relevant listings and that Johnson had not identified medical evidence showing equivalence to a listed impairment. The court also found that the administrative law judge gave sufficient reasons, including inconsistencies and misrepresentations in Johnson’s records and testimony, for finding his statements about the severity of his symptoms not fully credible.

Second, Johnson argued that the administrative law judge did not give sufficient weight to Dr. Chen’s opinion. The court found that the administrative law judge had considered Dr. Chen’s treatment notes, including notes indicating medically managed pain, a normal gait, no major postural deviations, and a later report that Johnson was asymptomatic. The court concluded that the administrative law judge properly evaluated Dr. Chen’s medical opinion.

Third, Johnson challenged the residual-functional-capacity assessment and argued that the administrative law judge should have ordered a consultative examination. The court concluded that the administrative law judge properly evaluated the medical evidence and conflicting reports about Johnson’s symptoms. It also found no indication that the record was ambiguous or inadequate enough to require a consultative examination. The court therefore concluded that the administrative law judge did not err in finding that Johnson could perform medium work with the stated restrictions.

Disposition

Judge Kandis Westmore denied Johnson’s motion for summary judgment and granted the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment. The opinion does not state a separate judgment or use the terms “with prejudice” or “without prejudice.”