Allen S. v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Allen S. sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying his claim for disability insurance benefits. He alleged disability beginning August 30, 2013, and his date last insured was June 30, 2016. The administrative law judge held a hearing on November 3, 2017, and issued an unfavorable decision on May 14, 2018. The Appeals Council declined review on February 20, 2019.

The administrative law judge found that Allen S. had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since his alleged onset date and had severe lumbar degenerative disc disease, arthritis, and peripheral neuropathy. The administrative law judge found no severe mental impairment and determined that Allen S. could perform a restricted range of sedentary work: lifting 10 pounds occasionally and less than 10 pounds frequently; sitting for six hours and standing or walking for two hours in an eight-hour workday; occasionally performing specified climbing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, and crawling; frequently balancing; and frequently fingering with both hands. The administrative law judge concluded that Allen S. could perform his past work as a computer systems engineer and therefore was not disabled.

Arguments and analysis

Allen S. argued that the administrative law judge erred by giving no evidentiary weight to Dr. Alexander Grinberg’s psychiatric opinion, rejecting Allen S.’s testimony about his symptoms, and giving little weight to testimony from Meriem S.

The court upheld the treatment of Dr. Grinberg’s opinion. Dr. Grinberg examined Allen S. on December 30, 2017, after the June 30, 2016 date last insured. The court found that the administrative law judge had specific and legitimate reasons for discounting the opinion, including its inconsistency with the record and its timing. The court noted that other medical opinions found no severe mental impairment, and that the record during the relevant period showed medication treatment but no treatment by a mental-health professional, counseling, or therapy corroborating a severe mental impairment.

The court also upheld the administrative law judge’s evaluation of Allen S.’s testimony. It found that the administrative law judge gave specific, clear, and convincing reasons for finding the testimony not fully reliable, including the inconsistency between the alleged limitations and objective findings, the course and effectiveness of treatment, and Allen S.’s activities such as household chores, driving, walking, shopping, computer use, and paying bills. The court further held that the administrative law judge gave a valid reason for giving Meriem S.’s testimony little weight because it was inconsistent with the medical evidence. The court also stated that her testimony largely duplicated Allen S.’s allegations, making any error harmless.

Disposition

The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the administrative law judge’s decision and that the administrative law judge did not commit reversible error. It DENIES Allen S.’s motion for summary judgment and GRANTS the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment. The court stated that it would enter a separate judgment, after which the clerk would terminate the case. Judge Thomas S. Hixson signed the order.