Lindy T. v. Berryhill

Background

Lindy T. sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying her application for disability insurance benefits. She alleged that her disability began on July 31, 2014. The administrative law judge found severe impairments consisting of cervical-spine degenerative disc disease, bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, and left cubital tunnel syndrome.

The administrative law judge found that Lindy T. retained the capacity to perform light work with restrictions. She could not climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; could only occasionally perform certain postural activities and overhead reaching; could frequently reach in other directions; and could not perform power gripping or torqueing activities with her hands or wrists. The judge found that she could perform her past relevant work as a server or, alternatively, other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Issues and analysis

Lindy T. argued that the administrative law judge improperly weighed the opinion of her longtime treating physician, Dr. Petry. Dr. Petry’s medical source statement stated that Lindy T. could not function in a competitive work setting, even part time, and described significant limitations involving pain, concentration, stress, walking, standing, sitting, lifting, and attendance.

The administrative law judge gave Dr. Petry’s opinion little weight. The court explained that a treating physician’s opinion receives controlling weight only when it is well supported by medically acceptable techniques and consistent with the other substantial evidence. The administrative law judge must give good reasons for assigning less weight.

The court found those reasons sufficient. The administrative law judge determined that Dr. Petry’s opinion was inconsistent with his own examination findings, the overall treatment history, other medical evidence, Lindy T.’s daily activities, and the findings of Dr. Neil Johnson and two state-agency physicians. The administrative law judge also noted that Dr. Petry’s opinion did not cite objective findings or explain the asserted frequency of Lindy T.’s expected absences, and appeared to rely substantially on her reported symptoms.

The court recognized that the administrative law judge did not adequately explore why Lindy T. did not pursue more medical treatment before drawing an inference from that fact. But the court concluded that, even without that reasoning, substantial evidence supported the administrative law judge’s decision. The court also noted examination findings showing normal or largely normal neurological results, strength, gait, sensation, reflexes, and joint range of motion, along with evidence supporting a restricted light-work capacity.

Ruling

The court concluded that the administrative law judge gave good reasons for discounting Dr. Petry’s opinion and that substantial evidence supported the finding that Lindy T. was not disabled. Judge Becky R. Thorson ordered that Lindy T.’s motion for summary judgment be denied and the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment be granted. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.