Jason M. G. v. O'Malley

Background

Jason M. G. sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying his application for disability insurance benefits. He alleged disability beginning January 15, 2019, based on physical and mental impairments including posttraumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, depression, headaches, asthma, and back problems.

After an earlier administrative decision was vacated and the case was sent back by the Appeals Council, a second administrative law judge held that Jason M. G. was not disabled. The judge found that he could not perform his past relevant work but retained the capacity for light work with physical and mental restrictions. Based on vocational-expert testimony, the judge found that he could work as a mail clerk, router clerk, or checker.

Issues

Jason M. G. raised two issues. First, he argued that the administrative law judge failed to comply with the Appeals Council’s remand instructions concerning possible conflicts between vocational-expert testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. The earlier decision had identified the job of kitchen helper even though the stated restrictions appeared to conflict with that job’s exposure requirements. On remand, the second administrative law judge changed the residual functional capacity restrictions so that the identified conflicts no longer applied and relied on testimony about other jobs.

Second, Jason M. G. argued that the administrative law judge inadequately explained the rejection of Dr. Cheryl Buechner’s opinion that he would be absent from work about four days per month. Dr. Buechner had otherwise identified mild or moderate mental limitations and recommended a low-stress position with few urgent changes to routine.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that whether an administrative law judge complied with an Appeals Council remand order was an internal agency matter that was not subject to judicial review under § 405(g). That statute permits review of whether substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s factual findings and whether the administrative law judge committed a legal error. The court also explained that the Appeals Council had vacated the entire earlier decision, so the second administrative law judge was not bound by the earlier residual functional capacity assessment or by the earlier finding concerning the kitchen-helper job.

The court separately reviewed the administrative law judge’s treatment of Dr. Buechner’s opinion. Under the applicable regulation, medical opinions are evaluated primarily for supportability and consistency. The court found that the administrative law judge adequately explained why the four-day absence limitation was only partially persuasive: Dr. Buechner had checked the four-days-per-month box without providing a supporting explanation or citing evidence, and other evidence in the record was inconsistent with that limitation. The court concluded that the administrative law judge’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and contained no legal error.

Disposition

The court denied Jason M. G.’s Motion for Summary Judgment. It granted the relief requested in the Commissioner’s brief in support of the final decision and affirmed the Commissioner’s final decision denying disability insurance benefits. The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.