Jerry D. v. Kijakazi

Background

Jerry D. sought review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of his application for disability insurance benefits. In an earlier related proceeding, the court granted Jerry D.’s motion for summary judgment and sent the case back for a new hearing because the administrative law judge had not adequately explained why she discounted the opinion of Jerry D.’s treating physician, Joseph Kwok, M.D., and because the judge’s credibility analysis relied on that medical-evidence error.

After the remand hearings, the administrative law judge again found that Jerry D. was not disabled from January 1, 2012, through September 30, 2015, his date last insured. The judge found degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine with grade I spondylolisthesis to be a severe impairment. The judge determined that Jerry D. could perform light work with limitations, could not return to his past relevant jobs, but could perform other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Jerry D. challenged the evaluation of medical evidence, his statements about the severity of his symptoms, and testimony from his brother, identified in the order as N.D.

Medical Evidence

Dr. Kwok completed a functional-capacity questionnaire stating that Jerry D. had significant sitting, standing, walking, lifting, and postural limitations, needed to change positions and take unscheduled breaks, and would likely miss work about three days per month. The administrative law judge gave that opinion little weight.

The court held that two reasons adequately supported the administrative law judge’s decision: the inconsistency between Dr. Kwok’s limitations and Jerry D.’s reported symptoms and activities, and the inconsistency between Dr. Kwok’s opinion and other medical evidence. The record included reports of less severe or improved pain, walking several miles, taking a dance class, traveling repeatedly to Greece, and medical opinions that Jerry D. could perform light work and sit for about six hours in an eight-hour workday.

The court found that the administrative law judge incorrectly treated two of Dr. Kwok’s opinions about sitting as internally inconsistent. The court also concluded that the administrative law judge improperly relied on testimony from Dr. Eric D. Schmitter because the judge had directed his attention to the earlier remand’s criticism of Dr. Kwok’s opinion and then used his testimony to support discounting it. The court nevertheless found those errors harmless because the other reasons supporting the administrative law judge’s treatment of Dr. Kwok’s opinion were sufficient.

Symptom Testimony

Jerry D. testified that he had constant lower-back pain, needed to lie down for several hours each day, and could not stand or walk for extended periods. The administrative law judge found that his statements about the intensity and limiting effects of his symptoms were not entirely consistent with the medical and other evidence.

The court held that the administrative law judge gave specific, clear, and convincing reasons for discounting Jerry D.’s testimony. Those reasons included generally conservative treatment, improvement with treatment, reports describing pain as intermittent, mild, slight, or occasional, physical activities and travel, generally unremarkable medical findings, and evidence of noncompliance. The court rejected Jerry D.’s argument that the cited activities showed only that he could not work continuously, concluding that the administrative law judge adequately identified evidence inconsistent with the claimed severity of his symptoms.

Lay Witness Testimony

N.D., Jerry D.’s brother, testified that Jerry D.’s back condition had worsened, that he left a job because of pain, and that N.D. had observed him limit his activities. The administrative law judge gave this testimony little weight, relying in part on the same reasons used to discount Jerry D.’s symptom testimony.

The court held that the administrative law judge was justified in giving N.D.’s similar testimony little weight because the reasons supporting the treatment of Jerry D.’s testimony also supplied adequate reasons for rejecting the brother’s testimony.

Disposition

The court concluded that the administrative law judge’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and applied proper legal standards. Judge Susan Van Keulen denied Jerry D.’s motion for summary judgment and granted the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment.