Michele B. v. O'Malley
- John Docherty
- 0:23-cv-01051
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 9
In Michele B. v. O’Malley, Magistrate Judge Docherty affirmed the denial of disability benefits, finding the administrative decision supported by substantial evidence.
Michele B., whose application for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits remained denied, and the Commissioner of Social Security.
What happened
In Michele B. v. O’Malley, Michele B. asked the federal court to review the Social Security Commissioner’s denial of her application for disability insurance benefits. An administrative law judge found that she was not disabled and could perform some of her past work.
Michele B. argued that the judge’s work-capacity finding did not adequately account for moderate limits in concentration, persistence, and pace. She also argued that referring to “Reasoning Level 3” jobs did not provide a clear assessment of her work abilities.
Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty rejected both arguments, ruled that the administrative law judge adequately addressed her limitations, and found substantial evidence supporting the decision. The court denied Michele B.’s motions, granted the Commissioner’s motion, and affirmed the benefits denial.
The detailed version
- Michele B. v. O'Malley · No. 0:23-cv-01051
- John F. Docherty
- Apr. 29, 2024
Background
Michele B. sought review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying her application for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits. She applied in September 2020, alleging disability beginning January 15, 2020. The Social Security Administration denied the application initially and on reconsideration. After a hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) denied the claim, and the Appeals Council declined further review.
The ALJ found severe impairments including generalized anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, polysubstance use disorder, and fecal incontinence after InterStim treatment. The ALJ found that none of the impairments met or equaled a listed impairment. The ALJ then assessed Michele B.’s residual functional capacity (RFC), meaning the work she could still perform despite her limitations. The ALJ found that she could perform work at all exertional levels with limits involving atmospheric exposure, routine and repetitive tasks, limited detail, and a specified absence from work once per month. The ALJ concluded that she could perform past work as a housekeeper, cleaner, or home attendant/personal care attendant and therefore was not disabled.
Arguments and analysis
Michele B. raised two challenges. First, she argued that the RFC did not adequately reflect the ALJ’s step-three finding that she had moderate limitations in concentration, persistence, or pace. The court explained that step-three ratings and the RFC serve different purposes. A step-three finding addresses whether an impairment meets specific criteria, while the RFC is a more detailed assessment of what a person can do based on the entire record.
The court also found that the ALJ actually accounted for these limitations in the RFC. The ALJ considered symptoms, testimony, treatment history, test scores, medication effectiveness, provider observations, medical opinions, and daily activities. The ALJ limited Michele B. to routine, repetitive tasks or tasks of limited detail consistent with “GED reasoning level 3,” which involves carrying out detailed but uninvolved instructions and handling problems involving a few concrete variables in standardized situations. The court concluded that this explanation was supported by substantial evidence and that the related hypothetical question posed to the vocational expert was not erroneous.
Second, Michele B. argued that the ALJ improperly used “Reasoning Level 3” as a substitute for a function-by-function assessment of her mental work abilities. The court rejected that argument because the ALJ separately discussed her mental impairments and their effects on her ability to work. The reference to Reasoning Level 3 provided additional clarification rather than replacing the required assessment.
Ruling
Judge John F. Docherty held that the Commissioner’s decision was supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. The court ordered that Michele B.’s motions, Docket Nos. 11 and 14, were denied; the defendant’s motion, Docket No. 13, was granted; and the Commissioner’s decision was affirmed.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.