Susan B.B. v. Berryhill

Background

Susan B.B. sought judicial review of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying her application for disability insurance benefits. She alleged disability beginning September 1, 2013. After a hearing, Administrative Law Judge Lyle Olson found that she was not disabled. The administrative law judge determined that she had several severe physical impairments, including obesity, bilateral knee replacements, degenerative conditions affecting her spine, compression fractures, and bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome.

The administrative law judge found that Susan B.B. retained the residual functional capacity—the most she could do despite her limitations—to perform light work with specified restrictions. The administrative law judge concluded that she could perform her past relevant work as a cosmetologist and, alternatively, other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Susan B.B. moved for summary judgment, asking the court to reverse the benefits denial. The Acting Commissioner filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, asking the court to uphold the decision.

Treating-Physician Opinion

Susan B.B. argued that the administrative law judge improperly evaluated the opinion of her treating physician, Dr. Lembcke. In an October 2014 medical source statement, Dr. Lembcke opined that she could lift no more than 10 pounds, stand and walk for about three hours, sit for about two hours during an eight-hour day, and would miss more than three workdays per month. He also identified restrictions involving changing positions, walking, climbing, crouching, stooping, neck movement, fine manipulation, and exposure to cold or wet conditions.

The court held that the administrative law judge gave the opinion appropriate weight. The court explained that a treating physician’s opinion is not automatically controlling and may receive less weight when it is inconsistent with substantial evidence or with the physician’s own examination records.

The court identified evidence supporting the administrative law judge’s decision, including examinations showing normal gait, station, muscle strength, or muscle tone; Susan B.B.’s ability to rise from a chair with minimal difficulty; relatively limited imaging findings; and examinations in which she had few complaints or was eager to return to work. The court also considered her testimony that medication reduced her pain substantially and caused no side effects. Her continued part-time cosmetology work was relevant as well, and the court noted that she performed that work at a medium exertion level even though the occupation is classified as light work. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the residual-functional-capacity finding.

The court also rejected Susan B.B.’s argument that the administrative law judge improperly relied on state-agency medical consultants. It found that the administrative law judge did not give those opinions the excessive weight Susan B.B. claimed and found no error in the weight assigned to them.

Reported Symptoms and Work History

Susan B.B. argued that the administrative law judge failed to consider her strong work history when evaluating the intensity and persistence of her symptoms. The court explained that current Social Security rules focus on evaluating symptoms rather than making a character-based “credibility” assessment. It found that the administrative law judge properly evaluated the medical and other evidence.

In addition, the court found that the administrative law judge had in fact considered Susan B.B.’s work history. The administrative law judge noted that she had worked as a cosmetologist for several years, including at or above the level considered substantial gainful activity, and that she had reduced her schedule from 40 hours per week to 12 hours per week.

Disposition

The court denied Susan B.B.’s motion for summary judgment, granted the Acting Commissioner of Social Security Nancy A. Berryhill’s cross-motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the case. Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.