Vue v. Berryhill

Background

Cher L. Vue sought review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying her application for disability insurance benefits. The Social Security Administration had denied her application initially and on reconsideration. After a hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) denied benefits, and the Appeals Council declined further review.

Vue filed cross-motions for summary judgment. She argued that the ALJ improperly evaluated work-related restrictions offered by her treating physician, Dr. Daniel Larkin; failed to account for her required use of a cane; and improperly evaluated limitations identified by her treating psychologist, Dr. Nicole Ward, and consulting psychologist, Dr. John O’Regan. The Commissioner argued that the ALJ properly evaluated the medical opinions and Vue’s use of an assistive walking device.

ALJ’s decision

The ALJ found that Vue had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since October 1, 2013. The ALJ found severe impairments including depression with anxiety symptoms, obesity after gastric bypass surgery, lumbar degenerative disc disease, a surgically repaired right-knee meniscal tear, and arthritis with pain. The ALJ determined that these impairments did not meet or medically equal the listed impairments in the Social Security regulations.

The ALJ assessed a residual functional capacity (RFC), meaning the most a person can do despite her limitations, for light work with restrictions. Those restrictions included occasional climbing of ramps and stairs; no climbing of ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; occasional balancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, and crawling; avoidance of hazardous machinery and heights; and routine, repetitive work without detailed, complex, or technical instructions.

The ALJ found that Vue could not perform her past relevant work but could perform other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy, including bench assembler, electronic worker, and hand packager. The ALJ therefore found that she was not disabled during the relevant period.

Court’s analysis

The court reviewed whether the Commissioner’s decision was supported by substantial evidence, meaning evidence sufficient for a reasonable person to accept the conclusion. The court considered evidence supporting and detracting from the decision and explained that it would uphold the decision if the record as a whole supported it, even if the evidence could also support a different conclusion.

Dr. Larkin’s opinion. Dr. Larkin stated that Vue could not perform low-stress jobs and identified limitations involving pain, attention and concentration, sitting, breaks, walking with a cane, lifting, and neck movement. The ALJ gave this opinion very little weight. The court found that the ALJ gave adequate reasons, including inconsistencies between the opinion and treatment notes, Vue’s limited pursuit of knee treatment, and examination findings that did not support the degree of limitation described.

The court also cited imaging and examinations showing limited or mild findings, including minimal knee changes after surgery, full range of motion and strength on one examination, and lumbar imaging showing mild degenerative changes without significant spinal canal narrowing or narrowing around the nerves. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s decision to discount Dr. Larkin’s opinion.

Cane use. Dr. Larkin prescribed a four-point cane after Vue’s knee surgery. Vue argued that the ALJ erred by not expressly including cane use in the RFC. The court disagreed, reasoning that the ALJ incorporated Vue’s walking difficulties through restrictions on balancing, climbing, kneeling, and workplace hazards. The court also relied on the state-agency medical opinion supporting those restrictions and noted Vue’s substantial weight loss and reported improvement after bariatric surgery.

Psychological opinions. Dr. Ward opined that Vue had moderate to marked limitations in many areas of functioning and would miss more than four workdays per month. Dr. O’Regan offered similar opinions about Vue’s ability to perform work-like tasks, interact with others, and tolerate workplace stress. The ALJ gave Dr. Ward’s opinion little weight and Dr. O’Regan’s opinion no weight.

The court found substantial evidence supporting those decisions. Treatment notes described improved mood, better sleep, less worry, intact memory, normal speech, and greater engagement and motivation. The court also noted that Dr. O’Regan recorded suboptimal effort during testing, including that Vue often gave up on memory tasks but supplied correct answers with encouragement.

Disposition

Judge Thorson concluded that the ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence. The court ordered that Vue’s motion for summary judgment was denied and the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment was granted, and directed that judgment be entered accordingly.