Janelle T. v. Berryhill

Background

Janelle T. sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying her application for disability insurance benefits. She alleged that she became unable to work on December 22, 2014, because of back and neck pain, headaches, migraines, and related limitations. The administrative law judge found severe impairments including chronic neck pain with headaches and migraines, cervical and thoracic spine disease, depression, anxiety, and sleep apnea.

The administrative law judge found that Janelle T. could perform medium work with restrictions, including limits on climbing, environmental exposure, driving, and work involving more than simple, routine, repetitive tasks. The judge found that she could not perform her past work as an administrative clerk but could perform other jobs identified by a vocational expert, including dry-cleaner helper, tag stubber, or cleaner. The judge therefore found her not disabled. The Appeals Council denied review.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that the administrative law judge did not adequately evaluate Janelle T.’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her symptoms. The judge relied primarily on objective medical evidence and did not specifically discuss her prior work record or other relevant factors. The court explained that the lack of objective evidence alone could not justify disregarding her statements, particularly because the administrative law judge had not adequately explained how other evidence undermined them.

The court also found that the administrative law judge did not fully address the claimed effects of Janelle T.’s migraines. The judge accounted for her ability to stay on task but did not discuss or include restrictions addressing her sensitivity to light, stated need to lie down until migraines subsided, or the changing effectiveness of Botox injections. The court remanded for specific consideration of those matters.

The administrative law judge did not discuss Dr. Michael Ulrich’s April and October 2015 opinions. Those opinions stated, among other things, that Janelle T. would need unpredictable rest periods and would be unable to work several days each month. The court held that the administrative law judge needed to evaluate those opinions under the rules governing opinions from treating medical sources, including whether they deserved controlling weight and, if not, what weight they deserved.

The court rejected Janelle T.’s challenge to the treatment of Dr. Jackie L. Micklewright’s evaluation. Dr. Micklewright identified fluctuating attention and cognitive speed and suggested strategies such as extra time, breaks, routines, and avoiding extreme time constraints. The court found that these were strategies to facilitate functioning rather than stated conditions preventing work, and that the administrative law judge adequately addressed the underlying mild attention and organization difficulties through restrictions to simple, routine, repetitive tasks and simple work-related decisions.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part Janelle T.’s motion for summary judgment and granted in part and denied in part the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment. It reversed the Commissioner’s decision and remanded the matter for further proceedings. On remand, the administrative law judge must properly evaluate Janelle T.’s symptom statements, including her prior work history; reconsider her light sensitivity, the relative ineffectiveness of Botox around the time of injections, and her stated need to lie down during migraines; and consider Dr. Ulrich’s opinions. The order did not award benefits.