Salerno v. Nancy Berryhill

Background

Anthony Salerno, represented by counsel, sought judicial review under the Social Security Act of the Commissioner’s decision finding that he was not disabled from his alleged onset date, April 9, 2015, through the administrative law judge’s decision on March 6, 2018. Salerno initially identified left-hip problems, hearing loss, and obesity as disabling. At his administrative hearing, he also identified a knee condition, carpal tunnel syndrome in both hands, a right-elbow condition, and a serious hip condition.

The administrative law judge found that Salerno had severe impairments consisting of left-hip osteoarthritis after reconstruction and hearing loss. The judge found that Salerno had the residual functional capacity—the most work he could perform despite his limitations—to perform light work, subject to restrictions. Those restrictions included occasional balancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, crawling, and climbing ramps and stairs; no climbing ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; frequent grasping and fingering with both hands; no use of left-foot controls; a sit/stand option every 45 to 60 minutes; and avoidance of concentrated exposure to hazards and noise. Relying on a vocational expert, the administrative law judge found that jobs existed in the national economy for a person with those limitations.

The parties submitted a joint stipulation instead of separate motions for judgment based on the court record. Salerno argued that the administrative law judge had improperly evaluated the medical listings, treating physicians’ opinions, residual functional capacity, Medical-Vocational Guidelines, and vocational-expert testimony.

Court’s analysis

The court first considered whether the administrative law judge had adequately developed the record. It found that the administrative law judge obtained complete medical records covering Salerno’s impairments from 2014 through 2017. Salerno identified no existing medical records that were missing. The court also found that evidence dated March 20, 2018, was outside the relevant period and was not properly before the administrative law judge.

The court upheld the finding that Salerno’s impairments did not meet or medically equal any listed impairment. Regarding the hip-related listing for major joint dysfunction, the record showed that he could walk well in clinic, could ambulate well during a consultative examination, did not require an assistive device, could use public transportation independently, and could walk at least two blocks. The court also found substantial evidence that he did not meet the listing’s requirements concerning effective use of both upper extremities. Although Salerno argued that other listings applied, the court found no evidence establishing the required criteria for disorders of the spine, soft-tissue injury, or reconstructive surgery involving an inability to ambulate effectively.

The court rejected Salerno’s challenge to the evaluation of his treating physicians. It found that the administrative law judge gave good reasons for assigning little weight to Dr. Steven Huish’s 2015 opinions that Salerno was temporarily totally disabled. Those opinions addressed an issue reserved to the Commissioner and did not provide a function-by-function assessment. The court also found that the administrative law judge reasonably gave great weight to Dr. Alejandro Gonzalez Della Valle’s opinion that Salerno could perform light-duty work with restrictions, because that opinion was consistent with examination findings, imaging, and Salerno’s improvement after hip replacement.

The court found that the administrative law judge legally erred by discounting Dr. Huish’s September 2017 opinion without expressly discussing the required factors for evaluating a treating physician’s opinion or otherwise providing a good reason. The court nevertheless held that the error was harmless. Dr. Huish’s opinion was contradicted by Dr. Della Valle’s opinion, a later examination showing that Salerno could ambulate well, Salerno’s reported daily activities, and the absence of medical records supporting the degree of hand and hip limitations described in the 2017 opinion. The court therefore concluded that the treating-physician rule had not been substantively violated and that substantial evidence supported the administrative law judge’s weighing of the opinions.

The court also upheld the residual-functional-capacity finding. It found that the administrative law judge considered the medical evidence, Salerno’s testimony, and his reported activities, including caring for his dog, preparing meals, doing light housekeeping, driving, using public transportation, using stairs with a rail, and taking a cruise. The court found that Dr. Igor Rubinshteyn’s records did not support a more restrictive capacity because they included opinions that Salerno could return to full-duty work without restrictions.

Finally, the court upheld the reliance on the vocational expert’s testimony. Although the administrative law judge did not separately discuss the Medical-Vocational Guidelines, the court found that the Guidelines supported a finding of no disability for a person of Salerno’s age, education, work history, and light-work capacity. Because Salerno also had non-exertional limitations, the administrative law judge properly used a vocational expert. The expert testified that jobs existed for a person with the limitations included in the residual-functional-capacity finding, and the court found the hypothetical questions sufficiently supported.

Ruling

Judge Katharine H. Parker denied Salerno’s motion and granted the Commissioner’s motion. The court concluded that the administrative law judge properly found that Salerno did not meet a listed impairment, that the residual-functional-capacity finding was supported by substantial evidence, and that the administrative law judge properly relied on the vocational expert’s testimony.