Zoran S. v. Berryhill

Background

Zoran S. sought disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. He alleged disability beginning September 1, 2012, based on physical and mental impairments, including major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and stomach pain related to medication and stress.

After the Social Security Administration denied his applications initially and on reconsideration, Administrative Law Judge Teresa L. Hoskins Hart held a hearing on November 6, 2017. On March 15, 2018, the administrative law judge found that Zoran S. was not disabled. She determined that his mental impairments were severe but did not meet or equal a listed impairment. She found that he retained the residual functional capacity—the most he could still do despite his impairments—to perform work at all exertional levels, subject to limits including simple, repetitive tasks, no team tasks, frequent coworker interaction, and no more than occasional public contact. The Appeals Council denied review, making the administrative law judge’s decision final.

The parties filed competing motions for summary judgment, asking the court to decide the case based on the administrative record. The court applied the rule that the administrative law judge’s decision must be upheld if supported by substantial evidence—relevant evidence a reasonable person could accept as adequate—and if the judge applied the correct legal standards.

Medical-opinion evidence

Zoran S. challenged the administrative law judge’s decision to give only partial weight to treating physician Dr. Adam Jarczewski’s opinion. Dr. Jarczewski had described serious work-related limitations, including an expected need for more than four absences per month and up to four unscheduled breaks during an eight-hour workday.

The court held that the administrative law judge gave specific and legitimate reasons, supported by substantial evidence, for discounting that opinion. Those reasons included conflicts with the opinion of medical expert Dr. Nathan Strahl; inconsistencies with treatment records, including Dr. Jarczewski’s own notes; inconsistencies with Zoran S.’s daily activities; reliance on recent subjective complaints; and gaps in mental-health treatment and periods of not following prescribed treatment.

The court also upheld the substantial weight given to Dr. Strahl’s opinion that Zoran S. had mild to moderate mental limitations. Dr. Strahl had reviewed the complete medical record and testified that Zoran S. could perform simple, repetitive tasks with limited interaction with others. The court rejected Zoran S.’s interpretation of Dr. Strahl’s testimony concerning another physician’s opinion and explained that the administrative law judge was not required to accept every part of an expert’s testimony.

Residual functional capacity

Zoran S. argued that the administrative law judge should have included a specific limitation concerning adaptation in the workplace. The court rejected that argument because the administrative law judge’s evaluation of the medical evidence was proper and substantial evidence supported the residual functional capacity finding.

Appointments Clause challenge

Zoran S. argued that the administrative law judge who presided over his case had not been appointed in accordance with the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. The defendant did not dispute that the administrative law judge had not been properly appointed at the time of the hearing. Instead, the defendant argued that Zoran S. had forfeited the challenge by failing to raise it during the administrative process.

The court agreed. It explained that an Appointments Clause challenge is not jurisdictional and may be waived or forfeited when not timely raised. Because Zoran S. did not raise the issue at his administrative hearing or in his request for review, and instead first raised it after receiving an unfavorable decision, the court held that he had forfeited the challenge.

Disposition

Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denied Zoran S.’s motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment. The order disposed of Docket Nos. 20 and 22.