Rickey P. V. v. Kijakazi

Background

Rickey P. V. sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Social Security Commissioner’s final decision denying his application for disability insurance benefits. He alleged disability based on conversion disorder, hemiplegic migraines, seizures, and strokes. The administrative law judge found that he had one severe impairment—conversion disorder—but that none of his impairments met or equaled a listed impairment. The agency determined that he could perform sedentary work with postural, environmental, pace, complexity, and social-interaction restrictions, and that a significant number of jobs remained available in the national economy.

The Appeals Council affirmed and adopted the administrative law judge’s decision after adding and considering an August 1, 2018 letter from Rickey P. V.’s treating psychiatrist, Dr. Michael D. Ekern. The letter stated that Dr. Ekern had treated Rickey P. V. since October 2016, that psychotherapy was the primary treatment, that medication had little effect, and that Rickey P. V. could not work.

Issues and Analysis

Rickey P. V. challenged four aspects of the agency’s decision: the finding that his conversion disorder did not satisfy Listing 12.07 for somatic-symptom and related disorders; the decision not to give controlling weight to Dr. Ekern’s opinion; the residual functional capacity assessment; and the determination that he knowingly chose to proceed without counsel at his hearing.

The court applied the substantial-evidence standard, under which it must affirm if the record contains enough evidence that a reasonable person could accept the Commissioner’s conclusions. The court may consider evidence supporting and detracting from the decision, but it may not reweigh the evidence or replace the Commissioner’s reasonable judgment with its own.

On Listing 12.07, the court held that substantial evidence supported the finding that Rickey P. V. did not have the required extreme or marked mental-functioning limitations. The administrative law judge and Appeals Council considered his reports but found inconsistencies in his reported symptoms, treatment compliance, activities, and statements to medical providers. The court concluded that the record supported the agency’s finding that his conversion disorder did not meet the listing.

The court also upheld the decision to give Dr. Ekern’s opinion little weight rather than controlling weight. The administrative law judge found that the opinion was not sufficiently connected to objective medical findings, contained internal inconsistencies, and appeared to have been completed at least partly by Rickey P. V. The court concluded that the administrative law judge adequately explained those reasons and was not required to seek further information from Dr. Ekern.

Regarding residual functional capacity—the most a person can still do despite claimed limitations—the court found that the agency considered the evidence about conversion-disorder symptoms and included restrictions addressing intermittent involuntary movements, fatigue, memory and concentration problems, social anxiety, stammering, environmental triggers, and work pace. The court concluded that the record did not require additional restrictions for the alleged severity and frequency of seizures, absences, or off-task time.

Finally, the court upheld the finding that Rickey P. V. knowingly chose to proceed without a lawyer. He received repeated written notices of his right to counsel, signed a document stating that he wished to proceed without representation, and declined the administrative law judge’s oral offer to continue the hearing so he could seek representation. The court found no error in allowing the hearing to proceed without counsel.

Disposition

The court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, granted Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and affirmed the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.