Rosalind J. G. v. Berryhill

Background

Rosalind J. G. applied for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, alleging disability beginning in September 2014. She identified spinal and neck conditions, depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, concentration problems, and other conditions. Her applications were denied initially and on reconsideration. After a hearing, an administrative law judge issued an unfavorable decision, and the Social Security Administration’s Appeals Council denied review. Rosalind then brought this federal case.

The parties filed competing motions for summary judgment, asking the court to rule based on the administrative record. The administrative law judge found that Rosalind had two severe impairments: cervical degenerative disc disease and depression. The administrative law judge found her leg and hip pain and lumbar-spine conditions non-severe, and did not separately discuss chronic pain syndrome at the second step of the disability analysis.

Issues and analysis

Rosalind argued that the administrative law judge should have identified chronic pain syndrome as either a severe or non-severe impairment. She also argued that this omission caused the administrative law judge to fail to consider the combined effects of chronic pain and depression, improperly evaluate psychiatrist Michael E. Stewart’s opinions, and improperly assess her statements about pain.

The court assumed, without deciding, that chronic pain syndrome was a severe impairment that should have been identified at the second step. It nevertheless concluded that any error was harmless because the administrative law judge considered the intensity, persistence, and functional effects of Rosalind’s pain when determining her residual functional capacity—the most she could still do despite her impairments. The court explained that this assessment must account for limitations from all medically determinable impairments, including impairments that are not severe.

The court also rejected Rosalind’s challenge to the treatment of Dr. Stewart’s opinions. The administrative law judge gave more weight to portions of the opinions concerning simple work and some social abilities, but less weight to opinions that Rosalind would be off task at least 25 percent of the time, miss four or more workdays per month, and have marked social limitations. The court concluded that those greater limitations were inconsistent with Dr. Stewart’s treatment notes, which described Rosalind as polite, cooperative, engaged, and maintaining good eye contact, as well as with other evidence concerning her daily activities. The court found that the administrative law judge gave good reasons supported by substantial evidence for assigning different weight to different parts of the opinions.

Finally, the court concluded that the administrative law judge properly evaluated Rosalind’s statements about pain. The administrative law judge considered medical findings, daily activities, treatment, medication, and work history rather than considering pain in isolation. The court noted evidence that Rosalind generally had normal strength and sensation in her upper extremities, performed some household and caregiving activities, prepared meals, shopped, attended some family events, watched movies, and generally managed her finances. The court held that substantial evidence supported the administrative law judge’s assessment.

Disposition

The court ordered that Rosalind’s motion for summary judgment was DENIED and the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment was GRANTED. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly. The opinion was signed by Tony N. Leung, United States Magistrate Judge.