D.L.P. v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

D.L.P. sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying his application for supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. He alleged disability beginning March 9, 2018, based on back pain. After a hearing, an administrative law judge found that D.L.P. had severe degenerative disc disease of the cervical and lumbar spine, but that he did not have an impairment meeting the regulatory listings. The administrative law judge found that D.L.P.’s mental impairments caused only mild limitations, determined that he could perform light work with additional postural restrictions, and concluded that he could return to his past work as a jeweler. The Appeals Council denied review.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a decision based on the record when there is no legally significant dispute requiring a trial. The court reviewed whether the Commissioner’s decision was supported by substantial evidence, meaning relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate, and whether the correct legal standards were applied.

Mental impairments

D.L.P. did not challenge the finding that his major depressive disorder and alcohol use disorder were mild and not severe. Instead, he argued that the administrative law judge still had to include limitations from those impairments in his residual functional capacity, which is the most a person can still do despite physical and mental limitations, and in the hypothetical question posed to the vocational expert.

The court held that the administrative law judge considered D.L.P.’s mild mental impairments. The decision discussed D.L.P.’s abilities in understanding and using information, interacting with others, concentrating and maintaining pace, and adapting or managing himself. It also considered medical evidence, his daily activities, his improvement with treatment, and the opinions of the state-agency consultant and consultative examiner. The court concluded that the administrative law judge’s statement incorporating the earlier mental-impairment analysis into the residual-functional-capacity assessment was not empty boilerplate.

The court further held that mild, non-severe impairments do not automatically have to produce a specific restriction in the residual functional capacity. Because the record supported the conclusion that D.L.P.’s mental impairments caused no more than minimal limitations in basic work activities, the administrative law judge was not required to include mental restrictions in the residual functional capacity or the vocational expert’s hypothetical question.

Medication side effects

D.L.P. argued that medication caused dizziness, drowsiness, sedation, nausea, and difficulty concentrating. Regarding his hypertension medication, the court found that the records showed medication changes, periods without reported problems, and reasonably controlled hypertension. The record of a later hospital visit mentioning lightheadedness and dizziness did not attribute those symptoms to medication. The court concluded that D.L.P. had not shown hypertension-medication side effects severe enough to interfere with work.

Regarding pain medication, D.L.P. testified that Buprenorphine caused nausea, dizziness, sedation, tiredness, and difficulty focusing. Medical records also documented nausea and tiredness. Although the administrative law judge did not expressly discuss those side effects, the court found that he gave greatest weight to D.L.P.’s statements and use of pain medication, assessed additional physical restrictions based on them, and addressed D.L.P.’s broader concentration complaints. The court therefore concluded that D.L.P. had not shown that the administrative law judge failed to consider the claimed pain-medication side effects.

Result

The court denied D.L.P.’s motion for summary judgment and granted the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment. The Clerk was ordered to enter judgment accordingly and close the case.