Kiely v. Berryhill

Background

Laurie Kiely sought judicial review of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying her applications for disability insurance benefits under Title II and supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. Kiely alleged that her disability began on July 31, 2013. After a hearing, Administrative Law Judge Roger Thomas found that she was not disabled. The Social Security Administration Appeals Council declined review, making the administrative law judge’s decision final for purposes of judicial review.

Kiely identified depression, anxiety, personality disorder, migraines, sleep apnea, obesity, right-hand osteoarthritis, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and right-foot problems following bunionectomy among her claimed conditions. Her relevant past work included kitchen worker, maintenance worker, sandwich maker and fast-food worker, school bus driver, and housekeeping cleaner. She was represented at the hearing by a non-attorney representative.

Administrative Decision

The administrative law judge found that Kiely had severe impairments consisting of depression, anxiety, personality disorder, obesity, and the condition following bunionectomy surgery. The judge found hypertension, asthma, high cholesterol, headaches, insomnia, and obstructive sleep apnea non-severe. The judge determined that Kiely’s impairments did not meet or medically equal the listed impairments used in the Social Security disability evaluation.

The judge assessed Kiely’s residual functional capacity—the most she could still do despite her impairments—as medium work, with limits to unskilled to semiskilled work, brief, infrequent, and superficial contact with others, and work in which serving the public was not a primary duty. The judge found that Kiely could perform her past work as a housekeeping cleaner. Alternatively, relying on vocational-expert testimony, the judge found that she could perform other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy, including cleaner and hand packager.

Arguments and Analysis

Kiely argued that the administrative law judge failed to develop the record about her physical impairments and improperly interpreted medical evidence without sufficient medical support. The court rejected that argument. It concluded that the record contained sufficient evidence to evaluate disability, including evidence that Kiely’s sleep apnea improved with continuous positive airway pressure treatment, her asthma was controlled with an inhaler, and her headaches were controlled with Imitrex. The court also found that treatment notes showed a successful recovery from the bunionectomy and did not establish limitations beyond the assessed residual functional capacity.

Kiely also argued that the judge failed to determine whether her osteoarthritis was severe and failed to account for back pain, patella chondromalacia, and carpal tunnel syndrome. The court concluded that the judge properly relied on a consultative examination that had considered evidence of osteoarthritis. It further stated that Kiely had not presented back pain as an independent basis for disability at the administrative hearing and that her representative had not informed the judge that the other conditions required consideration as independent bases for disability.

The court also held that any error in classifying osteoarthritis or back pain at the second step of the disability evaluation would have been harmless because the judge found other severe impairments and continued through the remaining steps. The court declined to reweigh the evidence. It also concluded that Kiely had not shown that any alleged error harmed her or that further development of the record would have changed the result.

Disposition

The court concluded that substantial evidence—relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate—supported the Commissioner’s determination that Kiely was not disabled. Judge Franklin L. Noel ordered that Kiely’s motion for summary judgment be DENIED, the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment be GRANTED, and the Commissioner’s decision be AFFIRMED. The court also ordered that the case be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and that judgment be entered accordingly.