Sheila A. v. Berryhill

Background

Sheila A. sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying her applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. She alleged that she had been unable to work since July 18, 2013, because of chronic pain, back and neck injuries, prolonged recovery, and depression.

An administrative law judge held a hearing at which Sheila A. and vocational expert Norman Mastbaum testified. The administrative law judge found severe impairments including degenerative disc disease in the cervical and lumbar spine, possible ankylosing spondylitis, chronic pain syndrome or somatic symptoms disorder, anxiety, and depression. The judge determined that Sheila A. had the residual functional capacity—the most she could do despite her impairments—to perform sedentary work with a brief sitting-to-standing position change every 30 minutes, involving routine, repetitive, and simple tasks.

The administrative law judge found that Sheila A. could not return to her past work as a prop attendant or photo stylist but could perform other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy, including account clerk, optical goods worker, and surveillance system monitor. The judge therefore found that she was not disabled. The Appeals Council denied review, making that decision the Commissioner’s final decision.

Issues Raised

Sheila A. argued that the administrative law judge:

Court’s Analysis

Evaluation of reported symptoms. The court found that the administrative law judge adequately considered the medical evidence, daily activities, and work history. The court concluded that the record supported the finding that Sheila A.’s reported symptoms were not as severe or limiting as she claimed.

The court rejected challenges concerning her daily activities, medication side effects, fatigue, pain flareups, depression, Patient Health Questionnaire scores, and the administrative law judge’s reference to a normal electromyogram. The court explained that the evidence of medication side effects and fatigue was limited, that the administrative law judge was not required to discuss every symptom separately or every piece of evidence, and that the reported daily activities and medical findings supported the symptom assessment.

The court also upheld the treatment of Dr. Robert A. Wengler’s independent medical examination. The administrative law judge reasonably gave no weight to portions of that report because they were vocational opinions prepared for workers’ compensation purposes and did not identify specific physical limitations. The court further noted that the imaging findings and other examinations did not support the extent of limitations claimed by Sheila A.

The court determined that the timing of the ankylosing spondylitis diagnosis did not affect the symptom analysis because the administrative law judge considered the severity and effects of all claimed symptoms regardless of their cause.

Evaluation of medical opinions. The court held that the administrative law judge gave legally sufficient reasons for the weight assigned to the providers’ opinions. The court approved the treatment of opinions from Dr. Carrie P. Noran Jaeger, nurse practitioner Molly McNaughton, Dr. Bernadette Clevenger, Dr. Parastoo Fazeli, Dr. Marvin L. Logel, and Dr. Kristen Zeller.

For Dr. Jaeger, the administrative law judge reasonably gave only some weight because the doctor did not explain the restrictions included in the phrase “light duty.” The court found that Dr. Jaeger’s examination findings and opinion otherwise supported the capacity for a limited range of sedentary work.

For Molly McNaughton, the administrative law judge reasonably discounted the suggested five-hour workday because the opinion lacked a supporting explanation and concerned conditions existing before the relevant period.

For Dr. Clevenger, the court upheld the decision to give no weight to most of the proposed restrictions because they were not supported by examination findings, were inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and lacked supporting reasons for restrictions such as missing more than four workdays per month. The administrative law judge accepted the opinion to the extent it supported a range of sedentary work.

For Dr. Fazeli, the court found it reasonable to discount the opinion that Sheila A. could work less than full-time sedentary work and would miss more than four days per month. Dr. Fazeli expected improvement within six to twelve months and did not explain the proposed absences. The administrative law judge accepted the opinion to the extent it supported a range of sedentary work.

For Dr. Logel, the court found no error in declining to let a somatic symptom disorder further reduce the residual functional capacity because Dr. Logel described a temporary graduated return-to-work schedule leading to full-time work.

For Dr. Zeller, the court upheld the decision to give no weight to the opinion that Sheila A. could not work until her ankylosing spondylitis was controlled. The court cited the report’s workers’ compensation purpose, its lack of support from contemporaneous clinical findings, and its indication that the restrictions were temporary and treatable with medication.

The court also rejected arguments concerning records or opinions from Julia Fischer, Dr. Orlando Charry-Rodriguez, Donald Darling, Dr. Mary Beth Lardizabel, Stephanie Drew, and Mark Roa. It found that the administrative law judge had considered relevant evidence from some of these providers, was not required to discuss every treatment record, and was not required to treat certain records as medical opinions under the applicable regulations.

Vocational-expert question. The court held that the hypothetical question presented to the vocational expert was sufficient because it included all impairments and limitations that the administrative law judge found supported by substantial evidence and accepted as true.

Disposition

The court denied Sheila A.’s motion for summary judgment and granted Commissioner Nancy A. Berryhill’s motion for summary judgment. Judgment was to be entered accordingly.