Daniels v. Berryhill

Background

Victor Lee Daniels sought review of the Social Security Administration Commissioner’s final decision denying his claim for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. He alleged disability beginning April 14, 2008, based primarily on neck pain and left-arm nerve problems. His insured status ended December 31, 2010.

An administrative law judge, or ALJ, initially denied the claim in 2014. The Appeals Council remanded the matter because the ALJ had not adequately considered the medical evidence. After another hearing, the ALJ again found Daniels not disabled on August 31, 2017. The Appeals Council denied further review, making that decision final.

The ALJ found five severe impairments: cervical-spine degenerative disc disease, left-shoulder degenerative joint disease, left carpal-tunnel syndrome, obesity, and diabetes. The ALJ determined that Daniels could perform light work involving very simple and routine tasks with minimal day-to-day changes, subject to restrictions including no climbing, no heavy machinery, and limited reaching. The ALJ found that he could not return to his past work but could perform other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Issues

Daniels challenged two parts of the ALJ’s decision. First, he argued that the ALJ failed to resolve an apparent conflict between the limitation to very simple and routine tasks and the reasoning requirements of the call-out operator and elections-clerk jobs. He also argued that the 10,880 counter-clerk jobs identified by the vocational expert were not a significant number of jobs.

Second, Daniels argued that the ALJ improperly gave only partial weight to the opinion of his treating physician, Dr. Warren B. Chin. Dr. Chin had described substantial limitations involving pain, neck movement, reaching, handling, fingering, concentration, breaks, and expected absences from work.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that any conflict between the very-simple-work limitation and the reasoning requirements of the elections-clerk and call-out-operator jobs was harmless. The record showed no mental impairments or limitations in concentration, persistence, or pace, and only mild limitations in understanding, remembering, and applying information.

The court also rejected Daniels’s challenge to the number of counter-clerk jobs. It held that a claimant who does not challenge a vocational expert’s job numbers during the administrative proceedings forfeits that challenge on appeal. Daniels had not questioned the reliability of the job estimates during those proceedings.

Regarding Dr. Chin’s opinion, the court explained that because the opinion was contradicted by state-agency consulting physicians, the ALJ had to provide specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence for discounting it. The court found that the ALJ met that standard by identifying inconsistencies between Dr. Chin’s limitations and evidence concerning Daniels’s daily activities, driving, household chores, work activity, treatment, and an examining surgeon’s determination that he was not a surgical candidate.

The court noted evidence that Daniels swept, drove for up to forty minutes, mowed the lawn on a riding mower, blew leaves, pulled weeds, gardened, coached baseball, cared for his children and two dogs, and shopped. The record also reflected that he performed odd jobs when available, attempted to start a business with his father, and took a five-month trip to Germany. The court concluded that the record as a whole supported the ALJ’s evaluation of Dr. Chin’s opinion.

Disposition

Judge Laurel Beeler denied Daniels’s motion for summary judgment, granted the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment, and affirmed the ALJ’s decision. The order disposed of ECF Nos. 18 and 19.