Hobbs v. Berryhill

Background

Orlando Hobbs sought judicial review of the Social Security Administration’s denial of his application for supplemental security income. He alleged disability based on asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, neck pain, headaches, a left shoulder injury, and other physical problems. An administrative law judge found that Hobbs was not disabled. The administrative judge determined that Hobbs had severe impairments involving his left shoulder and lumbar spine, but concluded that his asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were not severe.

The administrative judge found that Hobbs could perform light work, with only occasional overhead reaching using his left arm. Although Hobbs could not return to his past work, the administrative judge found that he had transferable skills and could perform other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Issues and Analysis

Hobbs argued that the administrative judge improperly found that his asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were not severe. The court held that substantial evidence supported that finding. The court pointed to records indicating that Hobbs’s breathing condition was controlled with inhaled medication, that he sometimes did not take medication as prescribed, and that the record did not show significant exacerbations, hospitalizations, or emergency treatment for respiratory problems. The court also held that any error at this stage would have been harmless because the administrative judge found other severe impairments and continued the disability analysis.

Hobbs challenged the finding that he could perform light work. The court concluded that the administrative judge considered the medical evidence, Hobbs’s reported activities, and his statements about his symptoms. The court accepted the administrative judge’s reasons for finding that Hobbs’s statements about the intensity and limiting effects of his symptoms were not entirely consistent with the record.

Hobbs also argued that the administrative judge gave too little weight to opinions from treating physicians Dr. Inveen and Dr. Goetz. The court held that the administrative judge provided adequate reasons for doing so, because those opinions were inconsistent with other medical evidence, including opinions from agency physicians and Dr. D’Amato’s assessment of Hobbs’s ability to stand and walk.

The court rejected Hobbs’s argument that the administrative judge should have included environmental restrictions for asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Because the court upheld the finding that those conditions were not severe, and because Dr. Inveen and Dr. Goetz did not identify environmental restrictions, the court found no error in omitting them from the work-capacity assessment.

Finally, Hobbs asked for another administrative hearing about his transferable skills and argued that the jobs identified by the vocational expert did not represent a significant range of work. The court denied the request for another hearing, reasoning that the record was sufficiently developed and that Hobbs’s counsel had already questioned the vocational expert about transferable skills. The court also concluded that the vocational evidence identified more than one occupation, including construction estimator and telemarketer, even when the additional environmental limits proposed by Hobbs were considered.

Disposition

The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the administrative judge’s decision denying Hobbs’s application for supplemental security income. Judge Franklin L. Noel ordered that Hobbs’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.