Janet D. v. Kijakazi

Background

Janet D. sought review of the Social Security Commissioner’s final decision finding her not disabled and denying her application for Supplemental Security Income benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. She asked the court to send the matter back to the agency for further proceedings. The Commissioner opposed the motion.

Janet D. filed her benefits application in March 2013, alleging disability beginning January 30, 2009. After a prior agency denial, she requested review under the settlement of an earlier class action involving consultative examinations performed by Frank Chen, M.D. The Social Security Administration re-adjudicated the claim for the period March 14, 2013, through December 3, 2013, but again denied it.

After a May 2021 hearing at which medical and vocational experts testified, an administrative law judge issued an unfavorable decision on December 28, 2021. The administrative law judge found severe impairments involving degenerative joint disease in both knees and obesity. The judge determined that Janet D. could perform a limited range of light work, including standing for about six hours and sitting for six to seven hours in an eight-hour workday, with additional restrictions. Relying on vocational-expert testimony, the judge found that she could perform her past relevant work as an interior designer.

Issues and Analysis

Janet D. challenged four parts of the administrative law judge’s decision: the evaluation of medical opinions, the evaluation of her statements about her symptoms, the residual functional capacity determination, and the finding that she could perform her past work.

Medical opinions. Janet D. argued that the administrative law judge improperly gave less weight to the opinions of treating physicians A. Shaba Khan, M.D., Howard E. Denbo, M.D., and Maria Lau, D.O., while relying on opinions from non-examining physicians. Because the treating-physician opinions conflicted with other medical opinions, the court said the administrative law judge had to provide specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence for discounting them.

The court concluded that the administrative law judge met that standard. Regarding Dr. Khan, the administrative law judge noted that he had not seen Janet D. since August 2011, did not identify specific functional limitations, and did not describe corresponding abnormal examination findings. Regarding Dr. Denbo, the administrative law judge found that his severe limitations were inconsistent with largely normal physical-examination findings and that his opinion lacked corresponding examination findings. Regarding Dr. Lau, the administrative law judge noted that her opinion was written years after the relevant period, did not provide many specific functional limitations, and was inconsistent with largely normal examinations. The court also noted that Janet D. did not directly address these reasons or explain why they lacked evidentiary support.

Statements about symptoms. The administrative law judge found that Janet D.’s medically determinable impairments could cause her symptoms but that her statements about their intensity and limiting effects were not entirely consistent with the record. The administrative law judge relied on imaging, largely normal examination findings, daily activities, treatment history, limited use of pain medication, and evidence that she did not follow some recommended treatment.

Janet D.’s specific challenge concerned an ambiguous July 2013 medical note that repeatedly referred to the patient as “he” or “him.” The court agreed that it was unclear whether that note concerned Janet D. But the same record contained another note describing an obese female with knee and back pain who declined knee injections and physical therapy. The court concluded that, even without relying on the ambiguous statement that the patient wanted disability rather than surgery, the administrative law judge gave specific, clear, and convincing reasons supported by the evidence for discounting Janet D.’s symptom statements.

Residual functional capacity. Residual functional capacity means the most a person can still do despite physical and mental limitations. Janet D. argued that the administrative law judge’s finding that she could stand for about six hours in an eight-hour workday did not adequately account for her knee disease or all of her limitations. The court rejected the argument because she did not identify specific limitations inconsistent with the assessed capacity, and the court had already found no error in the treatment of her physicians’ opinions.

Past work. Janet D. argued that the finding that she could work as an interior designer was unsupported. The court rejected that argument because it depended on her unsuccessful challenge to Dr. Denbo’s opinion. She also argued that the administrative law judge should have relied on a 2013 work-history report rather than her sworn 2021 testimony about how much standing the job required. The court held that the administrative law judge was entitled to rely on her sworn hearing testimony and found no error.

Disposition

The court denied Janet D.’s motion to remand. The opinion therefore left the Commissioner’s decision denying benefits in place.