Barrios v. Andrew Saul

Background

Daniel Barrios sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying his application for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. Barrios alleged that he had been disabled since February 27, 2018. After a hearing, Administrative Law Judge Cheryl Tompkin found that Barrios had not been disabled from April 5, 2018, through the date of the decision.

The administrative law judge found that Barrios had severe impairments including a cognitive disorder resulting from a traumatic brain injury, adjustment disorder, and left knee osteoarthritis. The judge determined that Barrios could perform light work with restrictions to simple, routine tasks, simple work-related decisions, routine workplace changes, and occasional interaction with supervisors, coworkers, and the public. The judge found that Barrios could not return to his past work as a warehouse worker but could perform other jobs, including housekeeping cleaner, merchandise marker, and small parts assembler.

Barrios moved for summary judgment, asking the court to reverse the denial and award benefits or, alternatively, remand the case for another hearing. The Commissioner filed a cross-motion for summary judgment asking the court to affirm the denial.

Court’s Analysis

The court reviewed the Commissioner’s decision under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). It could disturb the decision only if it was not supported by substantial evidence or was based on legal error. Substantial evidence means relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

Medical opinions. The court held that the administrative law judge properly found Dr. McKeever’s opinion unpersuasive. Dr. McKeever opined that Barrios had marked limitations in understanding, remembering, and carrying out detailed instructions and would likely miss more than four workdays each month. The court agreed that the opinion was excessively restrictive and conclusory, appeared to rely heavily on Barrios’s self-reported symptoms, was not supported by treatment records, and did not cite medical records or indicate that prior records had been reviewed.

The court also held that the administrative law judge properly assessed Dr. Blank’s opinion. Although Dr. Blank identified moderate limitations in several areas, the court found that the opinion supported the restrictions in the residual functional capacity finding, including the limitation to simple, routine tasks, routine workplace changes, and occasional interaction with others.

Barrios’s symptom testimony. The court concluded that the administrative law judge gave sufficiently clear and convincing reasons for finding that Barrios’s statements about the severity of his symptoms were not entirely consistent with the record. The judge considered the level of treatment Barrios received, his response to medication, the absence of mental-health therapy and surgery, and his daily activities, including helping care for younger siblings, using public transportation, occasionally doing yard work, seeking to cut neighbors’ grass, and cooking.

Third-party testimony. Barrios argued that the administrative law judge improperly rejected testimony from his brother, Rafael Barrios Garcia. The court found that the judge erred by failing to give a reason for rejecting that testimony. The court nevertheless found the error harmless because the brother’s description of Barrios’s daily activities and impairments was similar to Barrios’s testimony, which the judge had properly found unpersuasive. The court therefore upheld the conclusion that the brother’s testimony did not require a change to Barrios’s residual functional capacity.

Step-five finding. Barrios argued that the administrative law judge did not present all of his restrictions and limitations to the vocational expert. The court rejected that argument because it depended on Barrios’s challenges to the medical opinions and symptom testimony, which the court had already rejected. The court found that the step-five decision was supported by substantial evidence.

Disposition

The court affirmed the administrative law judge’s decision. It denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment. The clerk was directed to enter judgment in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff and to close the case.