Cuestas v. Saul, Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Anna Cuestas applied for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits. She alleged disability based on several physical and mental conditions, including somatic symptom disorder, interstitial cystitis, carpal tunnel syndrome, chronic pain syndrome, obesity, anxiety, depression, and panic disorder. After a telephone hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) found that Cuestas was not disabled. The Appeals Council declined to review that decision, making it the Commissioner’s final decision.

The ALJ found that Cuestas had severe impairments but that they did not meet or equal a listed impairment. The ALJ determined that Cuestas could perform a limited range of light work, including lifting 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently, standing or walking for six hours and sitting for six hours in an eight-hour day, frequently using her hands, performing simple tasks, and having only occasional contact with coworkers and the public. The ALJ found that she could not return to her past work as an eligibility worker but could perform the jobs of housekeeping cleaner, photocopy machine operator, and marker.

Cuestas’s Arguments

Cuestas argued that the ALJ improperly evaluated the medical opinions, improperly discounted her testimony about her symptoms, and made an unreasonable finding at the fifth step of the disability analysis. She argued that the housekeeping-cleaner and marker jobs required more standing and walking than the ALJ’s findings allowed.

Medical Opinions and Residual Functional Capacity

The court concluded that the ALJ properly applied the regulations governing claims filed after March 27, 2017. Those regulations require the Commissioner to evaluate medical opinions based primarily on supportability and consistency rather than giving controlling weight or automatic preference to a treating physician.

The court upheld the ALJ’s reliance on the opinions of state-agency physician K. Mohan and consultative examiner Robert Tang. The court noted evidence of largely normal examinations, including full strength, and found that the record supported the ALJ’s determination that Cuestas could perform a range of light work. The court also concluded that Dr. Tang’s reference to alternating sitting, standing, and walking did not establish a required sit-and-stand option.

The court upheld the ALJ’s decision not to find Dr. Leonard Gordon’s restrictions persuasive. The court agreed that the record did not support limiting Cuestas to four to six hours of computer work or to lifting 10 pounds on a moderately repetitive basis. It also agreed that the ALJ did not have to include Dr. Steve Petty’s recommendation for wrist splints and avoidance of repetitive hand activities because the record did not show that those recommendations were lasting limitations. The court therefore concluded that the residual functional capacity finding was supported by substantial evidence.

Cuestas’s Testimony

The court also upheld the ALJ’s assessment of Cuestas’s statements about her pain and other symptoms. The court explained that such statements cannot, by themselves, establish disability. It found that the ALJ gave specific reasons for discounting some of Cuestas’s allegations, including largely normal physical findings, limited treatment, improvement from treatment for chronic pain and interstitial cystitis, and failure to follow medical advice or attend a recommended chronic pain program.

Step-Five Job Finding

The court rejected Cuestas’s argument that the vocational expert’s testimony conflicted with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT). It concluded that the DOT did not specify the standing and walking requirements for the light-work occupations at issue and that limiting standing and walking to six hours in an eight-hour day was not necessarily inconsistent with those jobs. The court also held that the ALJ was required to resolve conflicts with the DOT, but not alleged conflicts with other vocational sources.

Disposition

The court affirmed the Commissioner’s decision. It granted the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment and denied Cuestas’s motion for summary judgment. The court dismissed the case with prejudice and directed the clerk to close the file. Judge Edward J. Davila signed the order.