Rice v. Berryhill

Background

John Rice sought judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner’s denial of his applications for disability insurance benefits under Title II and supplemental security income under Title XVI. He alleged disability beginning October 30, 2011, based on depression, anxiety disorder, and mood disorder. The administrative law judge found severe impairments consisting of major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and chemical dependency reportedly in remission since October 2013.

The administrative law judge found that Rice did not meet or medically equal a listed impairment. The judge determined that Rice retained the capacity to perform work at all exertional levels, subject to limits including simple, routine, and repetitive tasks; occasional changes in the work setting; brief and superficial interaction with supervisors, coworkers, and the public; no complex decision-making; no rapid, assembly-line-paced work; and no contact with or access to illicit drugs or alcohol. The judge concluded that jobs existed in significant numbers that Rice could perform and found him not disabled through the date of the decision.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The court reviewed whether the administrative law judge’s decision was supported by substantial evidence, meaning enough evidence that a reasonable person would consider adequate.

Terri Russell’s opinion

Rice argued that the administrative law judge failed to address or assign weight to the March 27, 2013 assessment by Terri Russell, a psychiatric mental health certified nurse specialist. Russell described Rice’s functional impairment as severe and recorded symptoms involving depression, anxiety, panic, mood changes, memory, and concentration.

The court found that the administrative law judge did discuss the assessment, including Russell’s mental-status observations, assessment, medication decisions, and prognosis. Although the administrative law judge did not quote the sentence stating that Rice’s functional impairment was severe, the court concluded that the record showed the assessment had been considered.

The court also held that the administrative law judge was permitted to give no weight to Russell’s opinion. Russell was treated as an “other source” rather than an acceptable medical source under the regulations. Her severe-impairment statement was based on Rice’s self-reports and observations from a single encounter, contained no specific work-related limitations, and was inconsistent with her observation that Rice could answer questions clearly despite reporting significant memory and concentration problems. The court further relied on later treatment records that, in its view, showed improvement and did not support the severe impairment described in Russell’s assessment.

Dr. Carrie Parente’s opinion

Rice’s principal argument concerned a November 5, 2015 mental impairment questionnaire completed by Dr. Carrie Parente, his treating psychiatrist. Parente had seen Rice 11 times between April 2014 and October 2015. Her questionnaire described substantial limitations in areas such as following instructions, maintaining attention, sustaining a routine, responding to supervision and workplace changes, maintaining attendance, completing a workday, maintaining pace, handling stress, interacting with others, and using public transportation. She also assessed marked or extreme limitations in several areas of mental functioning.

The administrative law judge gave Parente’s opinion little weight. The reasons included the opinion’s reliance on Rice’s self-reports, its lack of explanation for the severe and extreme limitations, Parente’s contemporaneous statement that Rice likely overinflated his symptoms, and mental-status examinations that generally showed no significant abnormalities.

The court concluded that these reasons were supported by substantial evidence. It emphasized the inconsistency between Parente’s treatment notes and her questionnaire. In the October 28, 2015 note, shortly before completing the questionnaire, Parente wrote that she did not doubt Rice had significant depression but had difficulty believing the severity of all the symptoms he reported. She also recorded that Rice said he was completely unable to function but declined to consider an intensive outpatient program because doing so would indicate that he was severely ill. The court found that the questionnaire endorsed the same reported symptoms that Parente had questioned.

The court also relied on treatment records from Parente and other providers that documented generally organized thought processes, intact or good judgment and insight, attention to conversations, and doubts about the severity or consistency of Rice’s reports. The court noted that Rice did not follow repeated recommendations for exercise, reduced caffeine and tobacco use, and other lifestyle changes. It held that this noncompliance could be considered when evaluating the consistency of Parente’s opinion, particularly because her questionnaire did not account for it.

Finally, the court rejected Rice’s argument that a later recommendation for intensive outpatient or day treatment supported Parente’s opinion. The court found that Parente’s October 2015 treatment plan did not recommend immediate intensive intervention and that the only later record showed an assessment recommending that Rice begin a day treatment program, with scant or no evidence that he actually began one. The later assessment occurred after the administrative law judge’s decision and did not establish that Parente’s earlier opinion should have received greater weight.

Disposition

The court held that the administrative law judge properly considered Russell’s assessment and reasonably discounted both Russell’s and Parente’s opinions. It concluded that the administrative law judge’s decision was supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.

The order denied Rice’s motion for summary judgment, granted the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the matter. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.