A.L. v. Kijakazi

Background

A.L. appealed the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying her applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. An administrative law judge found that A.L. had severe impairments including degenerative disc disease of the cervical and lumbar spine, peripheral neuropathy, depression, anxiety, and bipolar disorder. The administrative law judge concluded that these impairments did not meet or equal a listed impairment and that A.L. retained the residual functional capacity to perform light work with additional limitations.

The administrative law judge found that A.L. could not perform her past work as a fast-food manager, cashier/checker, or bank teller, but could perform other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy, including bagger-garments, packer, and clothing/garment sorter. The Appeals Council denied review. The parties then filed cross-motions for summary judgment, asking the court to decide the case based on the administrative record.

Standard of Review

The court explained that it could disturb the Commissioner’s decision only if it was unsupported by substantial evidence or based on an improper legal standard. Substantial evidence means relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The court must consider the record as a whole, but must uphold the administrative law judge’s reasonable interpretation when the evidence supports more than one rational interpretation.

Evaluation of Medical Evidence

A.L. argued that the administrative law judge improperly evaluated opinions from three medical providers.

Dr. Kelvin Vu stated that A.L. would miss work more than three times per month and would be off task for 15 percent of a normal workday. The administrative law judge found Dr. Vu’s opinion unpersuasive because his examination findings were generally unremarkable, imaging showed only mild or moderate degenerative changes, and the opinion was inconsistent with A.L.’s reported activities. Those activities included cleaning out closets, doing household chores, accompanying her husband to a forest to cut wood, and running errands with family members. The court held that these were permissible reasons for discounting the opinion and that the administrative law judge adequately addressed the opinion’s supportability and consistency.

Dr. Telford Moore opined that A.L. was significantly limited in several work-related abilities because of psychiatric conditions. The administrative law judge found that Dr. Moore’s testing and observations did not support an inability to tolerate full-time work or interact consistently with others. The administrative law judge also found the opinion inconsistent with treatment records showing that A.L. responded well to mental-health treatment and generally maintained a stable mental status. The court held that substantial evidence supported this evaluation.

Nurse Practitioner Wendy Brandon opined that A.L. would miss at least four workdays per month and be off task for more than 30 percent of the workday. The administrative law judge found this opinion inadequately supported because the questionnaire left unanswered several questions about A.L.’s mental abilities and because the opinion was inconsistent with Brandon’s treatment records and other counseling records. The court found substantial evidence supporting that conclusion.

The court also rejected A.L.’s argument that the administrative law judge had to explain consideration of additional regulatory factors, such as the provider’s relationship with her and specialization. The governing regulations require explicit discussion of supportability and consistency but state that the administrative law judge may, but need not, explain consideration of the other factors.

Listed Impairments

A.L. argued that her mental impairments met the requirements of Listings 12.04, 12.06, or 12.15. A claimant meets a listing only by satisfying the required medical criteria and either the paragraph B or paragraph C criteria. Paragraph B concerns extreme or marked limitations in specified areas of mental functioning; paragraph C concerns a serious and persistent disorder with only marginal adjustment.

The administrative law judge evaluated the paragraph B criteria and concluded that they were not satisfied. The administrative law judge also concluded that the paragraph C criteria were not satisfied because A.L.’s daily activities did not show only marginal adjustment. The court rejected A.L.’s argument that the three medical opinions established that she met the listings. Dr. Moore and Dr. Vu did not expressly state that A.L. met a listing, and the court had already upheld the administrative law judge’s treatment of their opinions. Although Brandon checked a box concerning paragraph C, the administrative law judge permissibly found her opinion unpersuasive.

The administrative law judge did not separately discuss Listing 12.15, but the court held that the analysis of Listings 12.04 and 12.06 provided an adequate basis for rejecting Listing 12.15 because the paragraph B and C criteria were the same. The court also noted that A.L.’s briefing did not identify other specific record evidence establishing the paragraph B or C requirements.

Disposition

Judge Susan Van Keulen denied A.L.’s motion for summary judgment and granted the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment. The order therefore upheld the Commissioner’s denial of A.L.’s disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income applications.