Noel R. v. Kijakazi

Background

Kristen Noel R. applied for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits on January 30, 2017, alleging disability beginning February 27, 2014. She testified at a hearing before Administrative Law Judge Michael A. Cabotaje, accompanied by counsel. The administrative law judge denied the claim on May 31, 2019.

The administrative law judge found that Kristen Noel R. had severe impairments including osteoarthritis of the left knee, a left knee arthroscopy, and obesity. He found that she could not perform her past relevant work but had the residual functional capacity—the most she could do despite her limitations—to perform a restricted range of light work. The restrictions included limits on standing, walking, sitting, climbing, kneeling, squatting, exposure to certain hazards, and walking without rest, as well as a sit-stand option and use of a cane. The administrative law judge found that jobs existed in significant numbers in the national economy that she could perform.

Kristen Noel R. moved for summary judgment, arguing that the administrative law judge’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence and used incorrect legal standards. The Commissioner filed a cross-motion for summary judgment.

Medical-opinion evidence

The court held that the administrative law judge properly gave little weight to the opinion of Babak Jamasbi, M.D. Jamasbi had stated that Kristen Noel R. was unable to perform her usual work, had reached maximum medical improvement, and could have a period of total temporary disability. The administrative law judge found those statements vague, conclusory, inconsistent with the overall record, and unsupported by objective findings. He also found that the workers’ compensation standard of being “permanent and stationary” was not relevant to disability under the Social Security Act.

The court rejected Kristen Noel R.’s argument that the administrative law judge failed to consider specific activity limitations in Jamasbi’s opinion. The court determined that the cited passage was written as a summary of Kristen Noel R.’s own reported limitations, rather than as a medical diagnosis or an objective assessment of work restrictions. The diagnosis and discussion portions of the report did not provide specific work limitations in objective medical terms.

The court also held that the administrative law judge properly discounted portions of Michael Tran, M.D.’s opinion. Tran had examined Kristen Noel R. for workers’ compensation purposes and identified restrictions involving heavy work, prolonged sitting and standing, walking more than 30 minutes at a time, lifting, pushing, pulling, kneeling, and squatting. The administrative law judge gave partial weight to Tran’s opinion, including its support for a sit-stand option, but found most of the limitations inconsistent with the overall record.

The court concluded that the administrative law judge gave specific and legitimate reasons for that determination. The administrative law judge relied on other medical evidence, including evidence concerning Kristen Noel R.’s recovery from surgery, ability to care for herself and attend school, and opinions addressing lifting and carrying. The court therefore found no error in the evaluation of Tran’s opinion.

Residual functional capacity

The court held that the residual functional capacity finding was supported by substantial evidence. Kristen Noel R. argued that the assessment should have included a restriction against lifting objects from the ground because of a limitation described in Jamasbi’s report. The court rejected that argument because the cited limitation reflected Kristen Noel R.’s account of her own condition, not an objective medical finding by Jamasbi.

The court likewise rejected the argument that the hypothetical presented to the vocational expert was incomplete because it omitted that restriction. Because the restriction was not supported by the medical evidence, the administrative law judge did not err by excluding it from the hypothetical or by partly relying on the vocational expert’s testimony.

The court also held that Kristen Noel R. waived any separate argument that the administrative law judge improperly evaluated her subjective symptom testimony. The court stated that this argument was not raised in the opening motion and was presented for the first time in the reply brief.

Disposition

The court denied Kristen Noel R.’s motion for summary judgment and granted the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment. The court thus left the administrative law judge’s denial of disability insurance benefits in place.