Francisca A.B. v. Saul

Background

Francisca A.B. sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying her application for supplemental security income disability benefits. She alleged disability beginning April 9, 2015. The administrative law judge found that she had several severe impairments, including lumbar degenerative disc disease, type-2 diabetes, asthma, major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, and an intellectual disorder. The administrative law judge determined that she could perform light work with physical, environmental, mental, and social limitations; could not perform her past work; but could perform other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Francisca A.B. raised five arguments: that the administrative law judge was improperly appointed under the Constitution’s Appointments Clause; that the judge improperly weighed Dr. Gustafson’s opinion; that the judge failed to properly consider Dr. Karayusuf’s opinion; that the judge used an incomplete hypothetical question for the vocational expert; and that the judge failed to adequately develop the administrative record concerning her post-surgery physical condition.

Analysis

Appointments Clause. Francisca A.B. conceded that she did not challenge the administrative law judge’s appointment before either the judge or the Appeals Council. The court held that the challenge was forfeited because it was not raised during the administrative proceedings. The court relied on authority treating Appointments Clause challenges as non-jurisdictional and concluded that no exceptional circumstances justified considering the issue for the first time in federal court. The court also rejected the argument that the Supreme Court’s decision in Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission gave her a basis for raising the issue only in federal court.

Dr. Gustafson’s opinion. Dr. Gustafson opined that Francisca A.B. could not walk at least one city block, stand or sit for more than one hour, and would miss at least four workdays per month. The court upheld the administrative law judge’s decision to give that opinion little weight. The form did not explain or provide objective support for its severity, other medical testing was unremarkable, Dr. Gustafson’s own reports conflicted with the opinion, and later medical evidence showed improvement after back surgery. The court also agreed that Francisca A.B.’s reported activities—including driving, walking several blocks, shopping, babysitting, and household chores—were inconsistent with the extreme limitations described in the opinion.

Dr. Karayusuf’s opinion. Dr. Karayusuf examined Francisca A.B. in October 2014 and identified several mental-health diagnoses, limiting her to simple instructions and ineffective interaction with others. The administrative law judge gave the opinion no weight because it fell outside the relevant period and was not supported by the record. The court found no error because the judge incorporated the relevant limitations into the residual functional capacity finding, including simple, routine tasks and brief, superficial contact with others. The court also found no error in the judge’s consideration of observations from the hearing because those observations were not the sole basis for the decision. Any error in assigning weight to Dr. Karayusuf’s opinion would have been harmless, the court concluded, because the relevant limitations were included in the residual functional capacity.

Vocational expert question. Francisca A.B. argued that the hypothetical question posed to the vocational expert was incomplete because the residual functional capacity finding improperly omitted limitations supported by the medical opinions. Because the court upheld the administrative law judge’s findings, it also held that the hypothetical question properly included the impairments supported by the record and that the vocational expert’s response provided substantial evidence for the denial of benefits.

Development of the record. Francisca A.B. argued that the administrative law judge should have obtained records concerning her back surgery and ordered a consultative examination of her post-surgery condition. The court noted that she had not provided the surgery or post-surgery records before or after the hearing, and that her attorney acknowledged that no special circumstances excused compliance with the requirement to submit relevant evidence at least five business days before the hearing. The court nevertheless found substantial post-surgery evidence in the record: later examinations documented a normal gait and no focal deficits. Because the record supported the decision, the court held that the administrative law judge was not required to order another examination.

Disposition

The court concluded that the administrative law judge’s decision was supported by substantial evidence. It denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and granted Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The court ordered judgment to be entered accordingly.