David P. v. Kijakazi
- Jerry Blackwell
- 0:23-cv-00005
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 7
In David P. v. Kijakazi, Judge Blackwell denied David P.’s motion, granted Kijakazi’s motion, and dismissed the case with prejudice.
David P.’s claim for Social Security disability insurance benefits was rejected; the Commissioner’s decision finding him not disabled was upheld.
What happened
David P. applied for Social Security disability insurance benefits after a 2016 car accident, citing lower-back disc problems, chronic pain, and numbness. An administrative law judge found severe lumbar degenerative disc disease and obesity but concluded that David P. could perform some light work and was not disabled. David P. challenged that decision, arguing that the judge failed to include all restrictions identified by a medical expert.
The court held that the administrative law judge was not required to adopt the medical expert’s opinion word for word. It found that the sit-and-stand option and occasional overhead-reaching restriction in the decision adequately reflected the expert’s testimony and were supported by substantial evidence.
Judge Blackwell denied David P.’s motion for summary judgment, granted Kilolo Kijakazi’s motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the matter with prejudice.
The detailed version
- David P. v. Kijakazi · No. 0:23-cv-00005
- Jerry W. Blackwell
- Nov. 16, 2023
Background
The Social Security Administration denied David P.’s application for disability insurance benefits. He alleged that he became disabled after a car accident in April 2016 because of herniated discs in his lower back, chronic pain, and numbness. After the agency denied the application initially and on reconsideration, David P. received a hearing before an administrative law judge, or ALJ, and was represented by an attorney.
The ALJ found that David P. had the severe impairments of lumbar degenerative disc disease and obesity. The ALJ determined that these impairments did not meet or equal a listed impairment. The ALJ found that David P. had the residual functional capacity, or RFC—the most he could still do despite his limitations—to perform light work with restrictions, including a sit-and-stand option, no foot controls, no ladder, rope, or scaffold climbing, no kneeling, rare stair climbing, occasional stooping and crouching, and occasional overhead reaching. Because David P. could not perform his past work but could perform other jobs existing in significant numbers, the ALJ concluded that he was not disabled. The Appeals Council denied review.
Claim and analysis
David P. raised one challenge. He argued that the ALJ found the opinions of impartial medical expert Dr. Howard Shapiro persuasive but failed to include all of Dr. Shapiro’s functional restrictions in the RFC or adequately explain the difference.
The court rejected that argument. It explained that the RFC is determined by the ALJ based on all relevant evidence and that an ALJ may accept some, but not all, of a medical opinion, even when finding the opinion persuasive. Dr. Shapiro testified that David P. could be on his feet for half an hour at a time and for up to two hours during a workday. The court found that the ALJ’s sit-and-stand option functionally accommodated those limits. The court also found that the occasional overhead-reaching restriction in the RFC was not substantively different from Dr. Shapiro’s testimony about occasional restrictions on overhead reaching.
The court concluded that the RFC and the ALJ’s disability determination were supported by substantial evidence, meaning relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate support for the conclusion.
Disposition
The court ordered that David P.’s motion for summary judgment was DENIED. It ordered that Kilolo Kijakazi’s motion for summary judgment was GRANTED. The court further ordered that the matter was DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and directed that judgment be entered.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.