Arthur T. v. Kijakazi

Background

Arthur T. sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Social Security Administration Commissioner’s denial of his application for disability insurance benefits. He alleged disability beginning October 29, 2018. The administrative law judge found that he had a severe impairment consisting of mild traumatic brain injury with a vestibular disorder. The administrative law judge found his depression and anxiety non-severe, determined that he retained the capacity to perform a full range of work at all exertional levels with specified environmental and climbing limits, and concluded that he could perform his past work. In the alternative, the administrative law judge found that he could perform other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

The Appeals Council denied review, after which Arthur T. filed this action. Both sides moved for summary judgment, which asks the court to rule based on the administrative record when there is no genuine dispute requiring a trial.

Issues and Analysis

Arthur T. argued that the administrative law judge erred at the second step of the disability evaluation by finding his major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder non-severe. The court explained that this step is only a threshold screen and does not determine which impairments must be considered in assessing residual functional capacity, meaning the claimant’s remaining ability to work. Because the administrative law judge considered the depression and anxiety when assessing residual functional capacity, the court held that any error in classifying those conditions at step two was harmless.

Arthur T. also challenged the assessment of his testimony about depression and anxiety symptoms. The court stated that, when the required conditions are met, an administrative law judge must give specific, clear, and convincing reasons for rejecting such testimony. The court found two independent adequate reasons here. First, the administrative law judge identified evidence of possible symptom exaggeration in a neuropsychological evaluation. Second, the administrative law judge accurately relied on medical records and reported activities, including exercise, travel, household tasks, shopping, bicycle riding, and caring for children. The court rejected Arthur T.’s arguments that the administrative law judge mischaracterized the evidence, noting inconsistencies among the reports and concluding that the activities were inconsistent with the limitations he described.

Disposition

The court denied Arthur T.’s motion for summary judgment and granted the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment. It directed the clerk to enter judgment and close the file. The opinion did not use the term “affirmed” in its concluding order.