James R. D. v. Saul

Background

James R. D. sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying his application for disability insurance benefits. He alleged that he became disabled after a December 19, 2011 motor-vehicle accident. The opinion states that he suffered, among other conditions, chronic neck and back pain, right-ear hearing loss, vision problems, headaches, a cognitive disorder, and a depressive disorder.

The Social Security Administration previously denied his application. In a prior related proceeding, the court remanded the matter to the administrative law judge for further proceedings, including reconsideration of James R. D.’s residual functional capacity and the evidence concerning his ability to remember instructions. After a further hearing, the administrative law judge again found that he was not disabled.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision

The administrative law judge found severe impairments including depressive disorder, cognitive disorder, right-ear hearing loss, double vision, headaches, a history of right-ankle fracture, and a left shoulder-joint separation. The judge found that these impairments did not meet or equal the requirements of the listed impairments in the Social Security regulations.

The administrative law judge determined that James R. D. could perform light work with restrictions. Those restrictions included routine, repetitive, simple three-to-four-step tasks; predictable instructions; limited contact with others; no strict production-rate or high-quota work; specified postural restrictions; limits related to visual and hearing problems; and no work at heights or with hazards or hazardous machinery. The administrative law judge found that he could not perform his past relevant work but could perform other jobs identified by a vocational expert, including bench assembly tasks, electronics work, and molding-machine-tender work.

Issues Raised

James R. D. argued that the administrative law judge improperly discounted the opinion of Dr. James F. Lewis, a consultative psychologist. Dr. Lewis had evaluated him once and opined that he was likely to forget directions after 20 to 30 minutes. James R. D. argued that this opinion should have led to greater work-related restrictions.

He also argued that the administrative law judge incorrectly found only a moderate limitation in his ability to concentrate, persist, or maintain pace. He relied particularly on testing that placed his processing speed in the fourth percentile and argued that this result showed a marked limitation. Two marked limitations, or one extreme limitation, in the relevant mental-functioning areas would have been needed to satisfy the paragraph B criteria for Listings 12.02 or 12.04.

The Commissioner argued that the administrative law judge’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and opposed James R. D.’s motion. The Commissioner also moved for summary judgment. Summary judgment asks the court to rule based on the record when there is no legally sufficient basis for the opposing party to prevail.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied the substantial-evidence standard. Under that standard, the Commissioner’s decision must be upheld when the record contains enough evidence that a reasonable person could accept it as adequate, even if the record could also support another conclusion.

The court held that the administrative law judge gave sufficient reasons for assigning little weight to Dr. Lewis’s 20-to-30-minute memory limitation. The administrative law judge considered Dr. Lewis’s testing and examination findings, other medical evidence, James R. D.’s reported activities, his mother’s testimony, and the testimony of Dr. Karen Butler, an independent medical expert who reviewed the record longitudinally. Dr. Butler testified that the record did not provide specific examples supporting the claimed inability to remember instructions after 20 to 30 minutes. The court found substantial evidence supporting the administrative law judge’s decision to exclude that limitation from the residual functional capacity assessment.

The court also rejected the challenge to the paragraph B findings for Listings 12.02 and 12.04. The administrative law judge found moderate limitations in understanding, remembering, or applying information; interacting with others; and concentrating, persisting, or maintaining pace, along with a marked limitation in adapting and managing oneself. The court explained that one test result, including the fourth-percentile processing-speed result, did not by itself establish a marked limitation. The administrative law judge had considered that result together with other testing, Dr. Butler’s testimony, and evidence concerning James R. D.’s activities. The court found substantial evidence supporting the moderate limitation finding.

Disposition

Judge Becky R. Thorson denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and granted Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.

Note on the Record

The opinion contains differing references to the date of the administrative law judge’s post-remand decision: one passage states March 13, 2018, while the procedural history identifies February 8, 2019. The court’s ultimate ruling is clear, but the precise decision date is not fully consistent within the opinion.