Michelle P. v. Berryhill

Background

Michelle P. sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for disability insurance benefits. The administrative law judge found that she had severe impairments including rheumatoid arthritis, migraine headaches, patellofemoral syndrome, rotator cuff tendinopathy, tachycardia, and a connective-tissue disorder with Raynaud’s symptoms. The administrative law judge determined that she could perform restricted light work, could not return to her past relevant work, but could perform jobs such as fold-machine feeder, bagger, and stuffer. The administrative law judge therefore concluded that she was not disabled.

Michelle P. challenged the decision on three grounds: that the administrative law judge improperly evaluated opinions from her treating physician, Dr. McLeod; improperly discounted her reported symptoms; and adopted a residual functional capacity—the most she could do despite her limitations—that was not supported by the evidence.

Ruling on Dr. McLeod’s Opinions

The court held that the administrative law judge properly discounted Dr. McLeod’s 2016 medical source statement, which said Michelle P. could work only in two-hour periods twice a week. The court found that this opinion was inconsistent with medical evidence from the relevant period, including evidence that medication reasonably controlled her symptoms, and with Dr. McLeod’s earlier opinions. The court also emphasized that the 2016 statement was made after Michelle P.’s date last insured, December 31, 2014, and did not show that it described her condition during the period when she was insured.

The court also found substantial evidence supporting the weight given to Dr. McLeod’s opinions from the relevant period. Those opinions restricted Michelle P. from active work at the Adult Detention Center but did not establish that she could not perform other work consistent with the administrative law judge’s residual functional capacity. The court noted that some of the opinions relied primarily on her reported symptoms and were inconsistent with normal examinations and other medical evidence.

Evaluation of Reported Symptoms

The court rejected Michelle P.’s argument that the administrative law judge improperly discounted her reported symptoms. Although the administrative law judge may have described her daily activities more broadly than the record warranted, the residual functional capacity included several limitations consistent with her testimony. The court characterized any problem in describing those activities as a writing deficiency that did not affect the result.

The court also found other substantial evidence supporting the administrative law judge’s evaluation of Michelle P.’s symptoms. That evidence included generally normal examinations and test results, limited treatment records from 2012 through 2014, conservative treatment that was described as effective, inconsistencies between her testimony and the medical record, and one instance of not following recommended treatment. The court concluded that any error concerning the description of her daily activities was harmless.

Residual Functional Capacity

The court held that the finding that Michelle P. could perform restricted light work was supported by substantial evidence. It rejected her argument that the inability to return to some past jobs—some of which involved sedentary work—necessarily conflicted with a light-work finding. According to the court, the vocational expert testified that she could not return to those jobs because of other restrictions, including limits on climbing, crawling, balancing, environmental exposures, and work involving more than routine, repetitive, unskilled tasks.

The court also noted that state-agency consultants concluded Michelle P. could occasionally lift or carry 20 pounds and frequently lift or carry 10 pounds, subject to additional restrictions. The court stated that Michelle P. had not challenged the weight given to those opinions. It concluded that her arguments sought an improper reweighing of the evidence.

Disposition

The court ordered that Michelle P.’s Motion for Summary Judgment was DENIED and that the Acting Commissioner of Social Security’s Motion for Summary Judgment was GRANTED. The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.