Jones v. Berryhill

Background

Bruce Jones, Jr. brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking review of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying his application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits. Both sides filed motions for judgment on the pleadings, which asks the court to decide the case based on the existing administrative record and written submissions.

Jones applied for benefits in February 2015 and alleged that his disability began in January 2012. The Social Security Administration denied the application. After a hearing, Administrative Law Judge Robert Gonzalez found that Jones had severe impairments including left-hip conditions and replacement surgery, lumbar spondylosis, depression, anxiety, and pain disorder. The administrative law judge found that Jones could not perform his past work as a security guard or store laborer, but could perform sedentary work with restrictions. Based on testimony from a vocational expert, the administrative law judge identified assembler, stuffer, patcher, and document-preparer jobs that Jones could perform. The administrative law judge therefore found Jones not disabled.

Issues and analysis

Jones raised three arguments for sending the case back to the agency:

Treating physicians’ opinions

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, the treating-physician rule generally required an administrative law judge to give greater weight to a treating source’s opinion when it was well supported by medically acceptable techniques and consistent with the record. If the opinion was not entitled to controlling weight, the administrative law judge had to consider factors such as the treatment relationship, supporting medical evidence, consistency with the rest of the record, and the source’s specialty, while giving good reasons for the weight assigned.

The court held that the administrative law judge properly gave Dr. Brown’s opinions some or little weight. Dr. Brown had expressed views that Jones was partially or totally disabled and could not work a full week. The court explained that the ultimate question of whether a person is disabled is reserved to the Commissioner, so those conclusions did not have to receive controlling weight. The court also found that Dr. Brown’s views about Jones’s specific limitations conflicted with other medical evidence, including findings of full or improved hip movement, a stable hip replacement, capacity for sedentary work with restrictions, normal strength, and the ability to perform various daily activities.

The court also upheld the administrative law judge’s decision to give very little weight to Dr. Ogulnick’s opinion that Jones had marked or extreme mental limitations. The court noted that other examinations showed largely intact memory, sound or only mildly limited concentration, logical thought processes, relationships with family and friends, and the ability to perform personal-care activities and drive. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the administrative law judge’s finding that the record showed no more than mild or moderate limitations in the relevant areas.

Medical listing

The court rejected Jones’s argument concerning Listing 1.03. That listing requires, among other things, an inability to walk effectively. The regulation generally defines ineffective walking as a serious limitation requiring a hand-held device that limits the use of both arms. The record showed that Jones used a cane, but the court found no evidence that he needed a walker or another device limiting both upper extremities. Some evidence indicated that he could walk without a cane. Because Jones could not satisfy all of Listing 1.03’s criteria, the court concluded that the administrative law judge did not err by not discussing that listing separately.

Reports of pain and other symptoms

The court also upheld the administrative law judge’s finding that Jones’s statements about the intensity and effects of his symptoms were not entirely consistent with the medical and other evidence. The record included findings of full or good strength, normal or improved range of motion, normal posture, normal sensation, no muscle atrophy, generally favorable hip findings, and the ability to perform some daily activities and light exercise. The court stated that the administrative law judge could resolve conflicts between Jones’s testimony and the other evidence.

The court acknowledged that the administrative law judge may have incorrectly assumed that Jones was seeking full-time work when Jones testified that he was seeking part-time work within his restrictions. But the court held that any such error was harmless because other substantial evidence supported the symptom assessment.

Disposition

Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein granted the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied Jones’s motion. The court therefore upheld the administrative decision denying Jones disability insurance benefits.