Audrey M.H. v. Berryhill

Background

Audrey M.H. sought judicial review of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying her application for disability insurance benefits. She alleged disability beginning March 16, 2010, based on Marfan syndrome, low back pain, anxiety attacks, and arthritis. Her insured status ended March 31, 2014.

Administrative law judge Virginia Kuhn found that Audrey M.H. had severe impairments involving degenerative disc disease of the spine and Marfan syndrome with aortic dilation, mitral valve prolapse, and joint involvement. The administrative law judge found that her retinal detachment, aphakia, anxiety, and depression were not disabling impairments during the relevant period. The administrative law judge determined that Audrey M.H. could perform sedentary work with restrictions, including no climbing of ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; occasional climbing of ramps and stairs; occasional balancing, stooping, kneeling, and crouching; no crawling; and frequent hand manipulation. Based on vocational-expert testimony, the administrative law judge found that she could perform other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy. The Appeals Council denied review, making the administrative law judge’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision.

Issues and analysis

Audrey M.H. challenged the weight given to the opinions of treating geneticist Dr. Salman Kirmani and general practitioner Dr. Kari Bunkers. The court held that the administrative law judge properly gave little or no weight to those opinions because the severe limitations they described were inconsistent with objective medical evidence, the doctors’ treatment notes, other examinations, Audrey M.H.’s reported activities, and the conservative treatment documented in the record. The court also found that the administrative law judge adequately addressed the regulatory factors for evaluating treating-source opinions, including the treatment relationships, medical specialties, support for the opinions, and consistency with the record.

The court rejected the argument that the administrative law judge failed to support the residual functional capacity finding with specific medical evidence. It found that the administrative law judge provided the required narrative discussion by reviewing treatment notes, objective medical evidence, medical opinions, reported daily activities, and other factors. The court stated that a residual functional capacity finding does not need to follow every limitation with a separate list of supporting evidence or rely on one specific medical opinion.

The court also upheld the administrative law judge’s evaluation of Audrey M.H.’s reports of pain. It concluded that the record supported the finding that her reported level of disabling pain was inconsistent with the objective medical evidence, her daily activities, and her conservative treatment. The court noted that the record supported back and some arthritic pain but did not show debilitating pain preventing work during the relevant period. It held that the administrative law judge properly considered the relevant factors and that the court could not reweigh the evidence.

Finally, Audrey M.H. argued that the administrative law judge lacked valid authority under the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. The court ruled that she waived this argument by failing to raise it at any point during the administrative process. The court explained that this type of challenge is not jurisdictional and must be timely presented to the agency to preserve it.

Disposition

The court denied Audrey M.H.’s Motion for Summary Judgment, granted Acting Commissioner Nancy A. Berryhill’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, and dismissed the case with prejudice. Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright ordered that judgment be entered accordingly.