Danielle G. v. Berryhill

Background

Danielle G. sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying her applications for disability benefits under Title II and supplemental security income under Title XVI. She alleged that physical and mental impairments caused by Borrelia Hermsii, a tick-borne illness, prevented her from working beginning October 14, 2013. Her alleged symptoms included paralysis in her hands and feet, vision problems, neurological issues, rapid heart rate, and low cortisol.

An administrative law judge denied the applications in November 2017. The Appeals Council denied review in September 2018, making the administrative law judge’s decision final. The parties then filed cross-motions for summary judgment, which asks the court to decide whether the administrative decision should stand based on the record.

Administrative Decision

The administrative law judge found that Danielle G.’s Borrelia Hermsii was a severe impairment, while her alcoholism and anxiety were non-severe. The judge found that her impairments did not meet or equal a listed impairment and determined that she had the residual functional capacity—the most she could still do despite her impairments—to perform the full range of sedentary work.

The administrative law judge found that Danielle G. could not perform her past work as a job developer, retail store manager, sales representative, or reservation agent. But relying on vocational-expert testimony, the judge concluded that she could perform other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy. The judge therefore found that she was not disabled during the relevant period.

Medical Opinions

The court upheld the administrative law judge’s decision to give little weight to the opinions of treating physician Dr. D. Craig Wright. Dr. Wright assessed substantial physical limitations, including the need for a walker, limited use of her hands, frequent work absences, and time off task. He also opined that her symptoms would frequently interfere with the attention and concentration needed for simple work.

The court concluded that the administrative law judge gave specific and legitimate reasons, supported by substantial evidence, for discounting those opinions. The court pointed to treatment records showing largely normal findings at various examinations, including normal strength, gait, neurological functioning, range of motion, and reduced or improved symptoms at different times. The court also relied on the independent examination by Dr. Manuel Hernandez, who found no limitations in lifting, carrying, standing, walking, or sitting, although he noted bilateral hand weakness and related manipulative limitations.

The court also upheld the decision to discount Dr. Wright’s June 2017 opinion. It found that the treatment records did not objectively support the claimed limitations involving concentration, grasping, fine manipulation, leg elevation, and other restrictions. The court stated that Dr. Theresa L. Phillips’s independent psychological examination, which found only mild mental limitations, provided substantial evidence supporting the administrative law judge’s resolution of the conflicting opinions.

Subjective Symptoms and Third-Party Statements

The court upheld the administrative law judge’s evaluation of Danielle G.’s testimony about the intensity and limiting effects of her symptoms. The administrative law judge found that her testimony was inconsistent with medical evidence and other evidence in the record, including largely unremarkable examinations, improvement with treatment, her reported daily activities, and physical-therapy records showing progress in strength, range of motion, fatigue, and walking.

The court also upheld the decision to give little weight to statements from Danielle G.’s mother. The administrative law judge found those statements inconsistent with the medical evidence and treatment records. The court held that this inconsistency was a sufficient reason to discount the statements.

Ruling

Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley held that the administrative law judge’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and free of legal error. The court denied Danielle G.’s motion for summary judgment and granted the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment. The opinion does not state that the case was dismissed with or without prejudice.