Kimberly S. v. Berryhill

Background

Kimberly S. applied for supplemental security income, alleging that she became disabled on June 1, 2011. The Social Security Administration denied her application initially and on reconsideration. After a hearing, Administrative Law Judge Roger Thomas issued an unfavorable decision on December 16, 2016. The Appeals Council denied review, making the administrative law judge’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision.

The administrative law judge found that Kimberly S. had severe impairments of asthma and systemic lupus erythematosus. He found that her depression and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder were non-severe because they caused no more than mild limitations. He determined that she had the residual functional capacity—the ability to work despite her impairments—to perform light work with restrictions, including standing or walking for no more than two hours in an eight-hour workday, changing position after 20 minutes of weight bearing, and avoiding certain temperatures, environmental conditions, and hazards. He found that she could perform past work as a sales clerk or office clerk and, alternatively, that she could perform other jobs available in the national economy.

Issues and analysis

Kimberly S. challenged the decision on three grounds. She argued that the administrative law judge improperly evaluated her past relevant work, including whether her sales-clerk work was physically possible, whether it was a composite job, and whether her prior jobs involved substantial gainful activity. She also argued that the administrative law judge improperly treated transferability of work skills as irrelevant. Finally, she argued that the administrative law judge’s treatment of her mental impairments and residual functional capacity was not supported by substantial evidence.

The court held that her student-worker position qualified as past relevant work. Past relevant work must have been performed within the prior 15 years, lasted long enough for the claimant to learn it, and constituted substantial gainful activity. The court concluded that the student-worker job involved office-clerk or secretary-type tasks and regular pay, so it could qualify as substantial gainful activity even though the work was part-time and the earnings were below the applicable income thresholds.

The court declined to decide whether the administrative law judge correctly analyzed Kimberly S.’s sales-clerk work because any error would not change the result. Her office work independently supported the past-relevant-work finding, and the administrative law judge also made an alternative finding that other jobs were available.

The court rejected the argument that the administrative law judge had to analyze whether Kimberly S.’s work skills transferred to other jobs. It concluded that the applicable vocational rules directed a finding of “not disabled” whether or not her skills were transferable. The court also found that her environmental and standing restrictions did not substantially reduce the relevant occupational base, and that vocational-expert testimony supported the availability of many jobs.

The court further held that the administrative law judge properly evaluated the mental impairments. The record showed that medication and therapy controlled her attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and depression, and that she performed various household, financial, social, and recreational activities. Because the record did not show that the non-severe mental impairments limited her ability to work, the court found that the administrative law judge was not required to add mental restrictions to the residual functional capacity.

Disposition

The court concluded that the Commissioner’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and did not result from a legal error. It denied Kimberly S.’s motion for summary judgment, granted the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the matter with prejudice.