John B. v. Berryhill

Background

John B. applied for Supplemental Security Income benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. The Social Security Administration denied the application, and an administrative law judge later found that John B. was not disabled. The Appeals Council declined to review that decision, making it the Commissioner’s final decision. John B. then sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

The administrative law judge found that John B. had scoliosis and osteoarthritis of the cervical and thoracic spine. The judge determined that John B. could lift and carry 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently, stand or walk for three hours in an eight-hour workday, sit for six hours, and occasionally climb, balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, or crawl. The judge also found that he could frequently reach, handle, finger, and feel with both hands. Based on testimony from a vocational expert, the judge concluded that John B. could perform his past work as a scanner operator and other jobs, including counter clerk, mill stenciler, and office helper.

John B. moved for summary judgment, asking the court to reverse the Commissioner’s decision. The Commissioner filed a cross-motion for summary judgment asking the court to affirm it.

Medical-opinion evidence

The court upheld the administrative law judge’s decision to give substantial weight to the opinion of consulting physician Ka Wai Tam, M.D. Dr. Tam concluded that John B. could stand and walk for up to three hours in an eight-hour workday, sit for up to six hours, lift and carry up to 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently, and perform specified postural and hand-related activities. The administrative law judge incorporated those limitations into the residual functional capacity assessment, except for environmental limitations concerning heights and heavy machinery.

John B. argued that the three-hour standing and walking limitation was inconsistent with the administrative law judge’s finding that he could perform modified light work. The court rejected that argument because the residual functional capacity expressly included the standing and walking limitation, and John B. did not challenge the vocational expert’s testimony as inconsistent with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles or otherwise argue that reliance on that testimony was improper.

The court also upheld the decision to give little weight to treating physician Sabiha Rasheed, M.D. Dr. Rasheed assessed much more restrictive limitations, including sitting, standing, or walking for less than one hour each during an eight-hour workday; rarely lifting less than 10 pounds; never lifting more than 10 pounds; and severe limits on head movement, postural activities, and use of the upper extremities.

Because other medical sources assessed less restrictive limitations, the administrative law judge was required to give specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence for discounting Dr. Rasheed’s opinion. The court found those reasons adequate. The record contained no treatment notes from Dr. Rasheed to support her opinion. The court also noted that John B. had testified that he regularly lifted weights, including deadlifting up to 210 pounds, and performed exercises involving crouching or squatting. Those activities were inconsistent with Dr. Rasheed’s opinions that he could never lift more than 10 pounds and could never twist, stoop, crouch, or squat. The court also found that the administrative law judge did not err by declining to obtain additional records because John B.’s counsel had not timely notified the judge about them, the judge allowed John B. to submit them later, and they were not submitted.

John B.’s testimony

The administrative law judge partially discounted John B.’s testimony about the severity of his symptoms. The court held that the judge gave sufficient reasons. John B. testified that he was independent in personal care, had started driving short distances, exercised regularly, lifted weights, practiced yoga, skateboarded, and sometimes used a stationary bicycle. The court recognized that these activities did not necessarily show that he could maintain full-time employment, particularly because he also reported intermittent symptoms and days when he could not get out of bed. Nevertheless, the court held that his ability to engage in vigorous exercise while claiming that he could not stand long enough to wash dishes reasonably cast doubt on allegations of total disability.

The court also upheld the administrative law judge’s consideration of the limited objective medical evidence. The record contained only 27 pages of treatment records, many concerning conditions unrelated to the claimed impairments, and no physical examinations apart from Dr. Tam’s consultative examination. The court held that the activities evidence and the limited medical evidence provided adequate reasons for the partial adverse credibility determination.

Past work and other jobs

The court rejected John B.’s challenges to the administrative law judge’s step-four finding that he could perform his past work as a scanner operator and step-five finding that he could perform other jobs. The court stated that the challenges largely depended on the arguments about the medical opinions and John B.’s testimony, which the court had already rejected.

John B. separately argued that there were not significant numbers of counter clerk or mill stenciler jobs in the national economy. The vocational expert identified 2,837 counter clerk jobs, 125 mill stenciler jobs, and 75,000 office helper jobs nationally. Because John B. did not dispute the office-helper number or argue that it was insufficient, the court held that the administrative law judge identified at least one occupation existing in significant numbers. The court therefore found no error in the step-four or step-five analysis.

Disposition

The court denied John B.’s motion for summary judgment and granted the Commissioner’s cross-motion. It directed the clerk to enter judgment for the Commissioner and against John B.