Tabor v. Berryhill

Background

Julie Ann Tabor sought judicial review of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying her application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. Tabor alleged disability beginning November 30, 2004, based on conditions including diabetes, spinal problems, strokes, headaches, and short-term memory issues.

The administrative law judge found that Tabor had severe impairments, including the effects of two cerebral vascular accidents, chronic headaches, obesity, diabetes, cognitive disorder, depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, and degenerative disc disease in the lumbar and cervical spine. The administrative law judge found that Tabor could perform medium work with limits on lifting, climbing, exposure to hazards, and performing instructions, and that she was limited to simple, routine tasks. Tabor could not perform her past work, but the vocational expert identified cleaner, laundry-worker, and hand-packager jobs that she could perform.

Issues and Analysis

Tabor argued that the administrative law judge erred by finding that her headaches did not equal Listing 11.03, by assessing her residual functional capacity without properly accounting for her headaches, by failing to adequately evaluate her statements about her symptoms, and by relying on the vocational expert’s testimony.

The court first held that the administrative law judge had not reopened Tabor’s earlier disability claim. Because the earlier determination was more than four years old and the administrative law judge did not reconsider it on the merits, the court limited its review to the period from October 25, 2007, through September 30, 2008.

The court upheld the finding that Tabor’s headaches did not meet or medically equal Listing 11.03 during the relevant period. Although the medical expert testified that her headaches had equaled that listing during an earlier period, the court noted the lack of significant treatment records concerning headaches during the relevant period and evidence that her headaches had improved.

The court also upheld the residual functional capacity determination. It stated that its role was not to reweigh the evidence or decide the facts anew, and it concluded that the administrative law judge’s assessment fell within a reasonable range supported by substantial evidence. The court further concluded that the administrative law judge adequately explained the evaluation of Tabor’s statements about her symptoms, including evidence concerning her activities, exercise, lack of treatment, and reports that her headaches had improved. Because the record supported the limitations used in the first hypothetical question, the court also upheld reliance on the vocational expert’s testimony about available jobs.

Disposition

The court affirmed the Commissioner’s decision finding that Tabor was not disabled. It denied Tabor’s motion for summary judgment, granted the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the case with prejudice. The court ordered judgment entered accordingly.