Roscioli v. Saul

Background

Robert E. Roscioli sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of his applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. He alleged disability beginning July 27, 2015, based on schizoaffective disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and seizures. The administrative law judge found that Roscioli had medically determinable post-traumatic stress disorder, bipolar disorder, seizures, and lumbago, but found that none of these impairments, alone or together, was severe for purposes of the disability analysis.

The administrative law judge also found that Roscioli had engaged in substantial gainful activity from approximately October 2016 through October 2017. Roscioli did not dispute that finding, but the parties agreed that the record still raised whether he was disabled before October 2016 or after October 2017. The Appeals Council declined to review the administrative law judge’s decision. The parties then filed competing motions for summary judgment.

Mental impairments

Roscioli argued that the administrative law judge improperly assessed the four mental-function areas known as the “paragraph B” criteria: understanding, remembering, or applying information; interacting with others; concentrating, persisting, or maintaining pace; and adapting or managing oneself. He identified contradictory language in the decision, which described his limitations as both mild and moderate. The Commissioner argued that the contradictions were clerical errors and that the decision’s context showed the administrative law judge intended to find mild limitations.

The court agreed with the Commissioner’s interpretation and concluded that the finding of only mild limitations was supported by substantial evidence. The court reviewed treatment records showing serious psychiatric difficulties before the alleged onset date, including hospitalizations and suicidal ideation, but also records after that date showing generally normal mental-status examinations, stabilization, medication compliance, and improvement. The court also relied on the testimony of a medical expert, who found only mild limitations in each paragraph B area, and on the administrative law judge’s assessment of other medical opinions.

The court held that the administrative law judge did not err in evaluating Roscioli’s medically determinable mental impairments. It also upheld the decision to give little weight to Roscioli’s Global Assessment of Functioning scores because those scores were snapshots of functioning at particular times and did not directly determine whether his impairments met the Social Security severity requirements.

Roscioli’s testimony

Because the administrative law judge found that Roscioli had an impairment that could reasonably produce his alleged symptoms and did not find that he was malingering, the judge needed specific, clear, and convincing reasons to reject Roscioli’s statements about the intensity and limiting effects of his symptoms.

The court found that two of the administrative law judge’s reasons were conclusory and unsupported by substantial evidence. One statement—that Roscioli had not received the kind of treatment expected for a totally disabled person—was too vague, particularly given his transient lifestyle and history of inpatient psychiatric treatment. The court also found that the administrative law judge did not adequately explain how playing video games contradicted Roscioli’s testimony or showed transferable work skills.

Nevertheless, the court held that the remaining reasons were supported by substantial evidence. Those reasons included treatment records showing stabilization and improvement, the absence of treating or examining physicians’ observations that Roscioli responded to internal stimuli, and the record concerning his work at Walmart. The court concluded that the administrative law judge provided sufficient specific, clear, and convincing reasons for rejecting Roscioli’s testimony.

Cardenas’s statements

Victoria Cardenas reported that Roscioli had difficulty with stairs, lifting, walking, sleep, chores, attention, verbal instructions, workplace relationships, and changes in routine. The administrative law judge gave her statements little weight, reasoning that the medical evidence did not show a severe physical impairment limiting Roscioli’s ability to work and that medical professionals were more persuasive on those issues.

The court held that inconsistency with the medical evidence was a sufficient reason to discount this lay witness evidence. Physical-therapy records and imaging showed minimal or mild findings, generally functional lumbar movement, no acute fracture, and no significant later back complaints. The court also noted that the record showed no emergency-room visits or hospitalizations for seizures and that Roscioli reported that his last seizure occurred in 2009. Because Cardenas’s statements were similar to Roscioli’s testimony, the court concluded that the reasons supporting rejection of his testimony also supported rejection of hers.

Disposition

The court denied Roscioli’s motion for summary judgment and granted the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment. It directed the Clerk to enter judgment and close the file.