Leslie J. v. Berryhill

Background

Leslie J. applied for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act in February 2014. She alleged disability beginning in December 2012 based on, among other conditions, fibromyalgia, lymphedema, degenerative disk disease, osteoarthritis, and knee problems. Her application was denied initially and on reconsideration. After a hearing, an administrative law judge found that she was not disabled. The Appeals Council adopted the administrative law judge’s findings about disability but corrected the date last insured from December 31, 2015, to September 30, 2016.

Leslie J. then brought this case challenging that decision. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, asking the court to decide the case based on the record without a trial.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision

The administrative law judge found that Leslie J. had severe impairments including obesity, lymphedema, a history of total knee replacements, fibromyalgia, asthma, and degenerative disk disease. The judge found that these impairments did not meet or equal a listed impairment. The judge determined that Leslie J. could perform sedentary work with additional restrictions: no kneeling, crouching, crawling, overhead tasks, or ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; a brief opportunity each hour to change position; no more than occasional firm gripping or torqueing; and no high concentrations of air pollutants.

Based on vocational-expert testimony, the administrative law judge found that Leslie J. could perform her past relevant work as a hospital admitting clerk and therefore was not disabled. The judge did not base the decision on cashier work, although the vocational expert also discussed some cashier positions.

Issues and Analysis

Leslie J. primarily argued that the administrative law judge’s residual functional capacity assessment was unsupported and that the judge improperly discounted the opinions of her treating physician, Dr. Nistler. Residual functional capacity means the most a person can still do despite her impairments.

The court recognized that fibromyalgia can be disabling but explained that a diagnosis alone does not establish disability. The relevant question was how severe Leslie J.’s symptoms were and how they affected her ability to function.

The court concluded that the administrative law judge gave good reasons for assigning little weight to Dr. Nistler’s opinions. Those opinions stated that Leslie J. could lift less than 10 pounds, sit and stand for less than two hours each, needed frequent position changes, needed to elevate her legs, and would miss work about twice a month. The administrative law judge found that these opinions were inconsistent with objective findings, Dr. Nistler’s own examination findings, other medical records, and Leslie J.’s activities. The court also noted that the administrative law judge did not rely only on the purposes for which some opinions had been prepared, such as applications for other benefits and student-loan relief.

The court cited evidence that Leslie J.’s lymphedema was generally stable with compression treatment, her knee symptoms improved after surgery, and examinations often showed normal strength, gait, or range of motion. Testing concerning her arm symptoms was largely normal, and neurology found no obvious neurological explanation for those symptoms. The court also considered her completion of an accounting degree, travel to an accounting competition, volunteer work, swimming and walking, riding with truck drivers, and travel to medical appointments.

The court held that substantial evidence supported the administrative law judge’s residual functional capacity determination, including the brief hourly position change and the decision not to require leg elevation or more restrictive hand-use limits. The court further held that the vocational expert’s testimony was based on a hypothetical that included the supported limitations and therefore provided substantial evidence that Leslie J. could perform her past work as a hospital admitting clerk.

Disposition

The court ordered that Leslie J.’s motion for summary judgment was DENIED and the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment was GRANTED. Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.