Nancy W. v. Kijakazi

Background

The Social Security Administration denied Nancy W.’s application for disability insurance benefits. She alleged disability based on post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, anxiety, depression, low back pain, neck pain, and memory loss. She later amended her alleged disability onset date to April 1, 2017.

After a hearing at which Nancy W. testified and was represented by a non-attorney representative, an administrative law judge found that she had several severe impairments: lumbar degenerative disc disease, cervical spine pain, somatic symptom disorder, depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, and a history of traumatic brain injury. The administrative law judge found that none of these impairments, alone or together, met or equaled a listed impairment. The judge determined that Nancy W. could perform medium work with restrictions, including simple, routine tasks; occasional contact with coworkers and supervisors; and only incidental, passing contact with the public.

The administrative law judge found that Nancy W. could not return to her previous work as a social worker or in human services, but could perform other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy. The judge therefore concluded that she was not disabled. The Appeals Council denied review, and Nancy W. brought this action. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the administrative record.

Nancy W.’s Arguments

Nancy W. raised three principal challenges. First, she argued that the administrative law judge failed to fully develop the record about her physical limitations by not ordering additional medical examinations. Second, she argued that the administrative law judge did not sufficiently consider her somatic symptom disorder when evaluating her reported pain and other symptoms. Third, she argued that the administrative law judge did not adequately explain why the opinions of her treating therapist, Barbara Nelson, were unpersuasive.

Nancy W. also argued that the appointment of the administrative law judge was legally invalid because the previous Acting Commissioner lacked authority to make the appointment. The court stated that the Eighth Circuit had recently rejected that argument and did not address it further.

Court’s Analysis

The court reviewed the administrative decision to determine whether it was supported by substantial evidence, meaning relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate to support the decision. The court explained that the administrative law judge must fairly and fully develop the record, but the claimant retains the burden of proving disability and establishing residual functional capacity, which is the most a person can still do despite her limitations.

On the physical-limitations issue, the court found that the record contained enough evidence for the administrative law judge to decide the claim without ordering more examinations. Nancy W. had undergone an orthopedic consultative examination in July 2020. That examination found normal range of motion in many joints and only moderate limitations in certain lumbar-spine movements. An X-ray showed arthritic changes but no significant disc narrowing. The court also noted that Nancy W.’s treatment for back pain was intermittent and conservative, that she sometimes went months without treatment, and that she reported improvement from occasional chiropractic visits. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the residual functional capacity finding.

On somatic symptom disorder, the court recognized that a person’s physical symptoms may be disabling even when medical evidence does not fully support the claimed severity. The court found, however, that the administrative law judge expressly rejected Nancy W.’s complaints and gave reasons for doing so. The administrative law judge cited activities that were inconsistent with disabling back pain and anxiety, including caring for grandchildren overnight, hosting family gatherings and doing most of the cooking, attending church and Bible study weekly, doing household chores, traveling to Arizona for several months each winter, taking golf lessons, and performing field work that included picking rocks with her husband. The court held that substantial evidence supported the finding that Nancy W.’s reported limitations were not fully credible, even considering her somatic symptom disorder.

On Barbara Nelson’s opinions, the court noted that Nelson’s questionnaire described marked to extreme limitations but generally answered questions by stating that the “Client reports” those limitations. The court agreed with the administrative law judge that this reliance on Nancy W.’s subjective reports, without support from Nelson’s own clinical findings or testing, made the opinions unpersuasive. The court also rejected the argument that references elsewhere in the record to difficulty with “serial sevens”—counting backward by sevens—objectively supported the extent of limitations Nelson identified.

Disposition

The court held that substantial evidence supported the administrative law judge’s determination that Nancy W. was not disabled. Judge Eric C. Tostrud ordered that Nancy W.’s motion for summary judgment was DENIED, the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment was GRANTED, and the matter was DISMISSED with prejudice. The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.