A.P.B. v. Saul

Background

A.P.B. appealed the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision about when she became entitled to disability benefits. The Commissioner awarded benefits beginning May 27, 2017, but denied benefits for January 1, 2015, through May 26, 2017. A.P.B. directly challenged the 2020 decision in the district court, and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, asking the court to decide the case based on the administrative record.

In an earlier round of this case, a court found no error in the denial of benefits through 2014 but ordered further consideration of the period from 2015 through November 15, 2017. The earlier court cited additional evidence concerning diabetes, kidney problems, and vertigo or dizziness, and directed the Social Security Administration to reassess A.P.B.’s credibility and determine whether she was disabled during that later period.

On remand, the Administrative Law Judge found that A.P.B. had severe diabetes with stage 3 chronic kidney disease and degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine. The judge found that she could perform light work, with additional restrictions, from January 1, 2015, through May 26, 2017, including her past work as a security guard and ball sorter. The judge found her disabled beginning May 27, 2017.

Issues and Analysis

A.P.B. argued that the Administrative Law Judge improperly evaluated her credibility, medical evidence, and residual functional capacity. Residual functional capacity means what a person can still do despite medical limitations.

Credibility. A.P.B. reported severe lower-back pain, limited ability to sit, stand, and walk, and dizziness that sometimes caused falls. The court found that the Administrative Law Judge gave specific, clear, and convincing reasons for finding that her statements were not fully supported for the period before May 27, 2017. The judge relied on medical records showing that, during that period, A.P.B. generally had full strength, a normal gait, and generally normal motor and sensory functioning, despite occasional dizziness, back pain, and reported weakness. The judge also included restrictions in the residual-functional-capacity assessment to account for some of her reported symptoms.

The court rejected A.P.B.’s argument that the credibility analysis was cursory and unsupported. It found that the 2020 decision carefully discussed and cited the medical records. The court also concluded that the analysis complied with the directions from the earlier remand order.

Medical evidence. A.P.B. challenged the decision to give limited weight to the testimony of independent medical examiner Howard S. Shapiro, M.D. Dr. Shapiro testified that A.P.B. might have met or equaled certain medical listings involving her spine, diabetes, or kidney impairments as early as 2003. The Administrative Law Judge found inconsistencies in Dr. Shapiro’s testimony, including his changing testimony about whether A.P.B. met or equaled a spinal listing. The judge also found that Dr. Shapiro did not provide sufficient objective support for his conclusions about the kidney-related listings and discussed matters, such as possible insurance-related explanations for gaps in treatment, that the judge considered inappropriate for the examiner to address.

The court held that the Administrative Law Judge properly evaluated Dr. Shapiro’s opinion under either the older or newer Social Security regulations. The judge gave greater weight to opinions from Dr. Emily Cohen, Dr. Chan, Dr. Bradhouse, and Dr. Calvin Pon because those opinions were consistent with each other and with other medical evidence. The court found no error in this weighing of the medical evidence.

Residual functional capacity and onset date. A.P.B. argued that her disability did not begin suddenly on May 27, 2017, and that the Administrative Law Judge failed to consider her conditions together. The court found that the medical record provided a relatively complete chronology and that the judge properly determined the onset date without needing a medical adviser. The court also found that the judge considered the combined effects of A.P.B.’s impairments, including diabetes, kidney problems, dizziness, and back pain. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the finding that her conditions became disabling on May 27, 2017, rather than earlier.

Disposition

The court DENIED Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and GRANTED Defendant Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment.