Tasha W. v. Berryhill

Background

Tasha W. applied for supplemental security income, alleging disability beginning June 1, 2012, based on diabetes mellitus, depression, schizophrenia, foot pain related to diabetes, and high blood pressure. The Social Security Administration denied the claim initially and on reconsideration. After a hearing, Administrative Law Judge Roger W. Thomas issued an unfavorable decision, and the Appeals Council denied review.

The administrative law judge found that Tasha W. had severe impairments involving schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder and cognitive limitations. He found her diabetes mellitus and history of deep vein thrombosis non-severe. He determined that her mental impairments did not meet or equal a listed impairment. He found that she could work at all exertional levels, subject to limits including very basic instructions, routine work, simple and unskilled tasks, limited stress, no high production goals or fast-paced assembly-line work, and only brief and superficial contact with others. Based on vocational-expert testimony, he found that she could perform work such as housekeeper or cleaner II and was not disabled.

Arguments and Analysis

The court reviewed the administrative decision under the substantial-evidence standard. That standard asks whether relevant evidence in the record would be adequate for a reasonable person to support the Commissioner’s conclusion, while also requiring review for legal error.

Tasha W. argued that the administrative law judge erred by finding her diabetes non-severe. The court disagreed. It found that the record showed her diabetes was generally controlled with medication, that symptoms worsened when she did not follow treatment, and that symptoms improved when she followed treatment consistently. The court also relied on evidence that she could perform daily activities such as walking, shopping, taking out the garbage, and doing laundry. In addition, state-agency medical consultants had found that her diabetes was not severe, and the administrative law judge gave their opinions significant weight.

Tasha W. also argued that the administrative law judge’s hypothetical questions to the vocational expert conflicted with his final decision because the questions considered diabetes and deep vein thrombosis even though the final decision classified those conditions as non-severe. The court found no conflict. It explained that hypothetical questions are part of the hearing record but do not control the final decision, and that an administrative law judge may consider greater limitations during questioning before completing the record review. The court also determined that the statements could be harmonized and that Tasha W. identified no supporting authority requiring the administrative law judge to adopt every impairment included in the hypothetical questions. Finally, the court concluded that any possible error was harmless because the vocational expert identified other jobs available in sufficient numbers even with additional exertional limitations.

Disposition

The order denied Tasha W.’s motion for summary judgment, granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the matter with prejudice. Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Katherine Menendez.