D.R. v. Kijakazi

Background

D.R. sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying her applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. She alleged disability beginning July 26, 2018, based on bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, neuropathy, hypertension, pseudotumor cerebri, and mental stress.

The administrative law judge found that D.R. had severe carpal tunnel syndrome, obesity, a disorder of the muscle, ligament, and fascia, and neuropathy due to chemotherapy. The administrative law judge also found medically determinable anxiety and depressive disorders, but concluded that they caused no more than mild limitations and were not severe. The administrative law judge determined that D.R. could perform less than the full range of light work, could not perform her past relevant work, but could perform other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy, including furniture rental clerk, dealer accounts investigator, and shipping and receiving weigher. The Appeals Council denied review.

Medical opinions

D.R. challenged the administrative law judge’s evaluation of examining consultants Robert Tang, M.D., and licensed psychologist Jeremy Blank.

The court found no error in the treatment of Dr. Tang’s opinion. Dr. Tang concluded that D.R. could perform light work with postural and manipulative restrictions. The administrative law judge found that opinion persuasive overall because it was supported by Dr. Tang’s examination findings and generally consistent with the record, including imaging and electromyography studies. The court rejected D.R.’s argument that the opinion was unpersuasive because Dr. Tang had not reviewed all later-submitted evidence, explaining that the administrative law judge had reviewed and considered that evidence.

The court also upheld the administrative law judge’s finding that Dr. Blank’s opinion was unpersuasive to the extent it assessed moderate functional limitations. The administrative law judge relied on the mild findings in Dr. Blank’s mental-status examination and the inconsistency between those limitations and D.R.’s ability to work full-time from 2020 through 2021. The court held that these reasons were supported by substantial evidence, meaning relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

Mental impairments

The court upheld the finding that D.R.’s anxiety and depressive disorders were not severe at the second step of the disability analysis. D.R. did not challenge the finding that she had no limitations in understanding, remembering, or applying information, or in concentrating, persisting, or maintaining pace. She argued that evidence showed greater limitations in interacting with others and adapting.

The court concluded that the administrative law judge considered the evidence of D.R.’s social difficulties, including her statements, her son’s report, and evidence concerning difficulties with medical personnel and others. The administrative law judge also considered evidence that D.R. reported no problems getting along with others, spent time with her children and close family, interacted appropriately during Dr. Blank’s examination, and worked full-time in a public-facing position. The court held that substantial evidence supported the finding of no more than mild limitations in interacting with others.

The court likewise upheld the finding of no more than mild limitations in adapting and managing herself. The administrative law judge considered D.R.’s statements about difficulty handling stress and changes in routine, therapy records describing depressive symptoms, Dr. Blank’s observations that she was well groomed and had good hygiene, her reported independence in daily activities except where limited by physical pain, and her full-time work.

Residual functional capacity

D.R. argued that the administrative law judge failed to account for her mental impairments in the residual functional capacity assessment. Residual functional capacity is the most a claimant can still do despite her impairments. She specifically argued that the hypothetical questions posed to the vocational expert should have included limits on contact with the public, coworkers, and supervisors, as well as a restriction based on reduced neck motion.

The court found no error in omitting a social-interaction restriction. It held that the administrative law judge considered the relevant evidence at the mental-impairment stage and incorporated that analysis into the residual functional capacity assessment. The court also noted that Dr. Blank and the state agency psychological consultants assessed only mild limitations in interacting with others, and that D.R.’s extended full-time employment supported the administrative law judge’s conclusion.

The court also rejected the argument concerning neck motion. Although medical records documented reduced neck movement and a cervical-spine magnetic resonance imaging study showed severe right foraminal stenosis, D.R. identified no medical opinion, administrative finding, or other evidence describing work-related restrictions caused by the neck condition. The court noted that the medical consultants did not assess neck-related limitations and that the administrative law judge considered the relevant examination findings.

Disposition

The court denied D.R.’s motion for summary judgment and granted the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment. The court directed the clerk to enter judgment accordingly and close the file.