Kimberly S. v. Berryhill

Background

Kimberly S. sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. The administrative law judge found severe impairments including depressive, anxiety, post-traumatic stress, and personality disorders; a history of breast cancer and mastectomy; spinal and joint degeneration; and obesity. The administrative law judge determined that Kimberly S. retained the residual functional capacity to perform limited light work, including routine and repetitive tasks with restrictions on physical activities, workplace hazards, production pace, and interactions with coworkers, the public, and supervisors.

The administrative law judge found that Kimberly S. had no past relevant work but could perform jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy, including visual inspection, plastics assembly, and bakery work. The administrative law judge therefore found her not disabled since January 1, 2007. The Appeals Council declined further review.

Issues and Analysis

Kimberly S. first argued that the administrative law judge failed to consider her borderline age. Social Security regulations identify age 55 as the beginning of the “advanced age” category. Kimberly S. was 54 when the administrative law judge issued the decision on March 1, 2017, and turned 55 six months and five days later. The court concluded that six months was the outer limit for a borderline-age analysis and that Kimberly S. fell outside that limit. It therefore held that the administrative law judge was not required to address whether the older age category should apply.

Kimberly S. also challenged the handling of Dr. Allison Wert’s October 2016 medical source statement. Dr. Wert described very severe work-related limitations, including interference with concentration and attention for up to 75 percent of the day, at least four missed workdays per month, an inability to perform even low-stress work, and extreme limitations in several areas of functioning.

The court concluded that the administrative law judge gave adequate reasons for assigning Dr. Wert’s opinion little weight. The opinion was inconsistent with Dr. Wert’s treatment notes, including a recent examination describing Kimberly S.’s mood, behavior, and affect as normal. It was also inconsistent with observations from other providers and with Kimberly S.’s testimony that she regularly cared for her three grandchildren by feeding them, preparing them for school, cooking for them, and remaining with them throughout the day. The court further agreed that Dr. Wert’s statement was largely conclusory and did not explain how she reached its conclusions.

The court also upheld the administrative law judge’s decision to give substantial weight to the opinions of state consultants Dr. S. Hill and Dr. James Alsdurf. The administrative law judge found those opinions consistent with Kimberly S.’s overall functioning, treatment history, examinations, medication history, and caregiving responsibilities. The court rejected Kimberly S.’s argument that the administrative law judge had to obtain additional medical clarification or another examination, explaining that resolving conflicts in the evidence is part of the administrative law judge’s role.

Disposition

Judge Tony N. Leung concluded that the administrative law judge’s decision was supported by substantial evidence, meaning enough evidence that a reasonable person could find it adequate. The court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, granted Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and dismissed the matter. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.