Scott M. v. Berryhill

Background

Scott M. sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying his application for widower insurance benefits. The administrative law judge (ALJ) found that Scott M. had several severe impairments, including joint problems, a hip replacement, a prior leg fracture, obesity, a knee condition, fibromyalgia, and depression. The ALJ determined that Scott M. could perform light work with physical and mental restrictions, including limits on lifting, standing, walking, climbing, balancing, concentration, and contact with coworkers and the public.

Because Scott M. had no past relevant work, the ALJ asked a vocational expert whether jobs existed in the national economy for a person with those restrictions. The vocational expert identified information clerk, document scanner, and document shredder jobs. The ALJ therefore found that Scott M. was not disabled. The Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision.

Arguments and analysis

Scott M. argued that the ALJ failed to give appropriate weight to a Medical Source Statement completed by Jacquelyn Steckler, a physician assistant in rheumatology. The statement described pain and limitations involving walking, sitting, standing, changing positions, breaks, lifting, hand use, bending, concentration, stress, and expected absences from work.

The court held that, under the regulations applicable to applications filed before March 27, 2017, a physician assistant was not an “acceptable medical source” and therefore was not a “treating source” entitled to the special deference given to a treating source. The court explained that Steckler’s statement was still evidence that the ALJ had to consider, but the ALJ could weigh it using factors such as how long and how often the source treated the claimant, whether the opinion was consistent with the record, and how well it was supported and explained.

The court concluded that the ALJ properly gave the statement little weight. Steckler identified many limitations as reported by Scott M. rather than as her own assessments, and she stated that she had been unable to perform functional-capacity testing. The court also agreed that the reported limitations were inconsistent with other evidence, including records that Scott M.’s hip replacement and knee surgery had produced good results, reports of exercise and treadmill walking, the ability to transfer and walk without difficulty, and evidence that medication helped control depression and anxiety. The court further noted that Scott M. had missed two consulting examinations, limiting the available examination evidence.

Ruling

The court found no error in the ALJ’s evaluation of Steckler’s statement, residual functional capacity assessment, or five-step disability analysis. Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright denied Scott M.’s Motion for Summary Judgment, granted Acting Commissioner Nancy A. Berryhill’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment, and dismissed the case with prejudice. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.