Robert J. F. v. Kijakazi

Background

Robert J. F. challenged the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. He alleged disability beginning April 26, 2018, based on injuries from an explosion at the Superior Refinery in Superior, Wisconsin.

The administrative law judge found severe impairments including degenerative disc disease in the cervical and lumbar spine, a left-wrist ligament tear, hearing loss, migraine headaches, traumatic brain injury, post-concussion syndrome, sleep apnea, major depressive disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder. The administrative law judge found that Robert could perform light work with restrictions on lifting, climbing, handling and fingering with his left hand, exposure to hazards and noise, task complexity, social interaction, workplace changes, and forceful grasping or twisting with the left hand. The judge concluded that Robert could not return to his past work as a carpenter but could perform other jobs, including housekeeping cleaner, marker, and mail clerk.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, asking the court to decide the case based on the administrative record.

Arguments and Analysis

Robert argued that the Commissioner and administrative law judge made several errors: rejecting or not displaying medical records from a December 2020 evaluation at the Twin Cities Spine Center; finding that his impairments did not meet or equal spinal Listing 1.04; evaluating his statements about pain and other symptoms improperly; finding Dr. Joseph Burgarino’s opinion generally persuasive; and assessing his ability to function without adequate support.

The court rejected the challenge to the additional Spine Center records. The court reviewed those records as part of the entire record and concluded that they did not create a reasonable probability that the result would have changed. Although Dr. Garvey recorded mildly increased reflexes, he also recorded intact motor strength and negative straight-leg-raise testing. The court therefore found that the records supported, rather than undermined, the conclusion that Robert did not meet the listing.

The court also upheld the finding that Robert did not meet Listing 1.04A, which required evidence including nerve-root compression, restricted spinal movement, motor loss accompanied by sensory or reflex loss, and, when the lower back was involved, positive straight-leg-raise testing. The court noted evidence of intact or normal strength, sensation, reflexes, gait, and range of motion, as well as negative straight-leg-raise testing. It concluded that Robert had not shown all the required criteria.

Regarding Robert’s symptoms, the court held that the administrative law judge reasonably considered the medical evidence, treatment effectiveness, and daily activities. The court acknowledged that Robert experienced pain but concluded that the record supported the finding that his symptoms were not as limiting as he alleged. The court cited evidence of improved wrist symptoms, helpful treatment, and activities such as caring for children, cooking, shopping, driving, walking, doing laundry, and other household or recreational activities.

The court found no error in the administrative law judge’s treatment of Dr. Burgarino’s opinion. Under the applicable regulations, supportability and consistency were the most important factors, and the administrative law judge was not required to explain the treatment-relationship and specialization factors in the circumstances presented. The court concluded that Dr. Burgarino’s opinions were supported by substantial evidence.

Finally, the court rejected Robert’s arguments that the residual functional capacity finding lacked substantial evidentiary support. The court stated that Robert’s arguments sought to have the court reweigh the evidence, which the court could not do. Because substantial evidence supported the administrative law judge’s assessment, the court affirmed the decision.

Disposition

Judge Tony N. Leung ordered that Robert’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 18, was DENIED, and the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 25, was GRANTED. The court affirmed the administrative law judge’s decision and ordered judgment accordingly.

Effect

The opinion leaves in place the denial of Robert J. F.’s claim for disability insurance benefits. The opinion does not state any further benefit award or other relief for Robert.