Jeannie M. B. v. Kijakazi
- John Docherty
- 0:21-cv-00438
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 17
Jeannie M. B. v. Kijakazi: Judge Docherty denied Plaintiff’s motion, granted the Commissioner’s motion, and affirmed the Social Security decision.
Jeannie M. B.’s claim for disability insurance benefits was denied, and the Commissioner’s decision was affirmed.
What happened
In Jeannie M. B. v. Kijakazi, the court reviewed the Social Security Commissioner’s decision denying Jeannie M. B.’s application for disability insurance benefits. She argued that the administrative law judge improperly evaluated an opinion from her treating chiropractor about pain-related cognitive and work limitations.
The administrative law judge found that Jeannie M. B. had several severe physical and mental impairments but could perform limited light work. The judge decided that she could not return to her past jobs but could perform other jobs existing in significant numbers. The Commissioner argued that the administrative law judge properly evaluated the chiropractor’s opinion.
Judge John F. Docherty denied Jeannie M. B.’s motion for summary judgment, granted the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, and affirmed the Commissioner’s final decision. The court held that although the administrative law judge discussed the chiropractor’s status at the wrong stage of the disability analysis, that error was harmless because the opinion was properly found insufficiently supported and inconsistent with the record.
The detailed version
- Jeannie M. B. v. Kijakazi · No. 0:21-cv-00438
- John F. Docherty
- July 20, 2022
Background
Jeannie M. B. sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying her application for disability insurance benefits. She alleged disability beginning October 24, 2017, based on conditions including central sensitization, fibromyalgia, post-Lyme’s disease, depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, headaches, arthritis, bursitis, chronic pain, and a fractured left hand.
An administrative law judge found severe physical impairments, including the left-hand fracture, fibromyalgia, knee and hip conditions, headaches, and chronic pain syndrome. The administrative law judge also found severe mental impairments, including generalized anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, attention deficit disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder. The judge determined that Jeannie M. B. could perform light work with restrictions, including limited use of her left hand and routine, repetitive, non-fast-paced tasks. Because she could not perform her past work, the judge relied on vocational-expert testimony that she could perform other jobs available in significant numbers in the national economy.
Issue
Jeannie M. B. raised one issue: whether the administrative law judge improperly evaluated an opinion letter from her treating chiropractor, Jonathan Herbert, D.C. Dr. Herbert stated that pain and impaired cognition made it difficult for her to focus, be productive, and follow instructions; that her symptoms could affect dependability and interactions with coworkers; and that she would need daily unscheduled breaks.
She argued that the administrative law judge wrongly stated that a chiropractor is not an acceptable medical source, improperly relied on Dr. Herbert’s statement that she had recently been more clear-headed, and incorrectly found that the need for unscheduled breaks was inconsistent with the record. The Commissioner argued that the administrative law judge properly evaluated the opinion.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that Social Security regulations distinguish between a “medical source” and an “acceptable medical source.” A chiropractor is a medical source but is not an acceptable medical source under the applicable regulations. Only objective medical evidence from an acceptable medical source can establish a medically determinable impairment at the second step of the disability evaluation.
The court held that the administrative law judge discussed Dr. Herbert’s status as a non-acceptable medical source while evaluating residual functional capacity—the most a claimant can still do despite her limitations—instead of at the second step, where that distinction mattered. But the court found the error harmless because the administrative law judge had already found several severe impairments and did not rely on Dr. Herbert’s status to reject the existence of those impairments.
The court further held that the administrative law judge properly evaluated Dr. Herbert’s opinion under the post-2017 regulations. Those regulations emphasize supportability, meaning whether an opinion is supported by relevant evidence, and consistency, meaning whether it agrees with other evidence in the record. The court agreed that Dr. Herbert’s opinions about memory, cognition, and workplace interactions went beyond the expertise reflected in his chiropractic treatment records. The court also found the opinion internally inconsistent because Dr. Herbert described significant cognitive problems while also noting that Jeannie M. B. had recently been more clear-headed.
The court concluded that Dr. Herbert’s statement about workplace interactions had little persuasive value because he acknowledged that he had not observed the problem. It also agreed that the opinion about daily unscheduled breaks was inconsistent with the record. Jeannie M. B. identified no other provider who found that she needed unscheduled breaks, and the court rejected the argument that missed medical appointments established such a need.
Disposition
Judge John F. Docherty denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, granted Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and affirmed the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision.
Read the full 17-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.