Darrell F. v. Kijakazi

Background

Darrell F. applied for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits on June 12, 2018, alleging disability beginning February 1, 2018. After a hearing at which Darrell F., a vocational expert, and a medical expert testified, the administrative law judge found severe impairments of bipolar disorder, persistent depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and cannabis dependence.

The administrative law judge found that Darrell F. had the residual functional capacity—the most the person could do despite medical limitations—to perform work at all exertional levels, subject to nonphysical limits such as performing simple, repetitive tasks and making simple judgments. Because Darrell F. had no past relevant work, the administrative law judge relied on vocational-expert testimony and found that Darrell F. could perform unskilled work. The administrative law judge therefore found Darrell F. not disabled.

Arguments and Analysis

Darrell F. challenged the administrative law judge’s evaluation of the medical opinions. The court applied the Social Security regulations governing applications filed after March 27, 2017. Under those regulations, medical opinions are evaluated primarily for supportability and consistency rather than according to a hierarchy that automatically favors treating physicians.

The court upheld the administrative law judge’s decision to find the opinions of medical expert Ricardo Buitrago and non-examining psychological consultants Eugene Campbell and Peter Bradley persuasive. The court concluded that their opinions were supported by and consistent with the medical record. It also upheld the decision to find the opinions of examining psychologists Lorraine Schnurr and Lara T. San Pedro unpersuasive. The court accepted the administrative law judge’s reasons that those opinions were unsupported, inconsistent with the record, or substantially based on Darrell F.’s self-reported symptoms. The court also concluded that Buitrago provided support for his view that Darrell F. had exaggerated the severity of the reported symptoms.

The court rejected Darrell F.’s argument concerning the mental-disorder listings. It found that Darrell F. had not shown the ongoing treatment, therapy, support, or structured setting required for the listings’ paragraph C criteria. The court also noted that none of the opinions the administrative law judge found persuasive identified the extreme or marked limitations required under the paragraph B criteria. Any lack of detail in the administrative law judge’s findings on the listings therefore would have been harmless.

The court also upheld the evaluation of Darrell F.’s symptom testimony. Although the administrative law judge could have provided more detail, the court found substantial evidence supporting the finding that the alleged symptom severity was inconsistent with the treatment history and medical evidence. The court further stated that Darrell F. had not identified specific testimony or medical records showing that any error affected the disability determination.

The court rejected the challenges to the residual functional capacity finding. It reasoned that an eight-hour workday was within the six-to-eight-hour range identified by Buitrago, and that the administrative law judge was not required to include limits identified only by Schnurr and San Pedro after properly finding their opinions unpersuasive. The court also concluded that any failure to include a public-contact restriction was harmless because the vocational expert testified that unskilled jobs remained available for a person with limited interaction with others.

Finally, the court considered the administrative law judge’s failure to ask the vocational expert about possible conflicts with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, a Department of Labor resource describing occupational requirements. The Commissioner conceded that the question was not asked, but the court found no demonstrated obvious or apparent conflict. Darrell F. did not identify an occupation whose essential requirements conflicted with a limitation concerning high production quotas, and the court found that Campbell and Bradley had not imposed a no-public-contact limitation.

Disposition

Judge Sallie Kim denied Darrell F.’s motion for summary judgment and granted the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment. The court ordered that a separate judgment issue and that the Clerk close the file.