Lopriore v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Vincent Michael Lopriore sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision on his applications for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act and supplemental security income under Title XVI. He alleged disability beginning January 12, 2014, based on physical and mental conditions, including a wrist fracture, osteoarthritis, lumbar degenerative disc disease, depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder.

An administrative law judge issued a partially favorable decision. The judge found Lopriore disabled from January 12, 2014, through April 30, 2016, and awarded benefits for that closed period. The judge found that medical and physical improvement occurred as of May 1, 2016. For the later period, the judge determined that Lopriore had the residual functional capacity to perform a range of light work, including simple repetitive tasks without public interaction, and that jobs existed in significant numbers that he could perform. The Social Security Administration’s Appeals Council denied review, making the administrative law judge’s decision final.

Issues

Lopriore moved for summary judgment, and the Commissioner filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. Lopriore argued that the administrative law judge improperly evaluated his statements about the severity of his symptoms, failed to properly weigh medical evidence, wrongly determined that he did not meet mental-impairment Listings 12.04 or 12.06, and adopted a residual functional capacity finding unsupported by substantial evidence.

Court’s Analysis

The court reviews a Commissioner decision to determine whether it is supported by substantial evidence and whether the agency applied proper legal standards. The court rejected Lopriore’s challenge to the evaluation of his symptom statements. It held that medication and therapy constituted conservative treatment and that evidence showed his mental symptoms improved when he took medication. The court also held that the administrative law judge fulfilled the duty to develop the record by continuing the hearing, keeping the record open, and giving Lopriore opportunities to submit additional evidence. The court found that the evidence was not ambiguous or inadequate in a way that required further development.

The court also upheld the administrative law judge’s treatment of the medical evidence. It found that the judge did not improperly disregard treating psychologist Dr. John Frederick Hiatt’s treatment notes because those notes did not assign specific work-related limitations or state that Lopriore was unable to work. The court held that the judge gave specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence for giving little weight to the joint opinion of Dionne Childs and Dr. Lesleigh Franklin, including that the opinion was based on a limited evaluation conducted before Lopriore was taking psychiatric medication and was inconsistent with the broader treatment record. The court agreed that the judge’s reliance on the fact that the examination appeared to have been arranged by counsel was not, by itself, a sufficient reason to discount the report, but found that error harmless because the other reasons were adequate.

The court further held that the administrative law judge gave germane, or appropriately specific, reasons for giving little weight to the opinions of Patricia Jones and Sabrina Estell. Those reasons included inconsistency with the medical record and other medical opinions, reliance on Lopriore’s subjective complaints, and the use of check-box forms without supporting explanations or objective findings. Because the court found no error in weighing the medical evidence, it also found no basis to disturb the administrative law judge’s reliance on the state-agency physicians’ opinions.

Disposition

The court concluded that the administrative law judge properly determined that Lopriore was not disabled under the Social Security Act from May 1, 2016, onward. Judge Lucy H. Koh denied Lopriore’s motion for summary judgment and granted the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment.