Kathryn K. v. Kijakazi

Background

Kathryn K. applied for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits on October 22, 2020. She alleged that her disability began on January 31, 2019, and identified several disabling conditions, including Turner syndrome, bipolar disorder, a mechanical heart valve, coronary artery disease, gastroesophageal reflux disease, hearing loss, borderline personality disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and high blood pressure.

The Social Security Administration denied the application and denied reconsideration. After a hearing, Administrative Law Judge Glenn Meyers decided that Kathryn K. was not disabled from January 31, 2019, through the date of his decision. The administrative law judge found that she had several severe impairments but that none met or equaled a listed impairment. He determined that she could perform light work with restrictions, including simple and routine tasks, no contact with the public, work near but not in coordination with coworkers, occasional contact with supervisors, and no work at heights or near hazardous conditions.

A vocational witness identified jobs available in significant numbers in the national economy for a person with those limitations, including marker, bench assembler, and silver wrapper. The Appeals Council denied review. The parties then filed cross-motions for summary judgment, which ask the court to decide whether the administrative decision should stand based on the record.

Issues and analysis

Kathryn K. argued that the administrative law judge improperly assessed two aspects of her residual functional capacity, meaning her ability to work despite her impairments.

First, she argued that the administrative law judge should have limited her to work alone or in semi-isolation because state-agency psychologists Dr. Lovko and Dr. Mylan said she would work best alone, in semi-isolation, or in a small group. The court explained that the psychologists did not say she could not work with others. The administrative law judge’s restrictions allowing work near coworkers and occasional contact with supervisors were therefore consistent with those opinions.

The court also relied on Kathryn K.’s testimony about her grocery-store job. She regularly assisted customers at a deli counter, had no specific conflicts with coworkers or supervisors, and hoped to work more hours. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the administrative law judge’s assessment of her ability to work with others.

Second, Kathryn K. argued that the administrative law judge failed to account for Dr. Andal’s recommendation that she be encouraged to focus on one task at a time. The court determined that this was an encouragement, not a finding that she was unable to handle more than one task. It concluded that the administrative law judge’s decision was consistent with Dr. Andal’s opinion and supported by substantial evidence.

Disposition

Judge David S. Doty denied Kathryn K.’s motion for summary judgment and granted Kilolo Kijakazi’s motion for summary judgment. The court ordered that the matter be dismissed with prejudice and directed that judgment be entered accordingly.