Collier v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Rose Marie Collier sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying her applications for disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income. Collier alleged disability beginning in December 2010 based on major depressive episodes, bipolar disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, cocaine and marijuana use in remission, and tobacco use.

An administrative law judge found that Collier had severe impairments consisting of depression, bipolar disorder, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder. The administrative law judge found that these impairments did not meet or equal a listed impairment. The judge determined that Collier could perform work at all exertional levels, subject to limits including simple, routine, and repetitive tasks; only occasional interaction with the public, coworkers, and supervisors; simple work decisions; occasional workplace changes; no strict production pace; and the ability to maintain attention and concentration for two hours at a time during an eight-hour workday.

The administrative law judge found that Collier could not perform her past relevant work but could perform other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy, including silverware wrapper, label marker, and routing clerk. The administrative law judge therefore found that Collier was not disabled under the Social Security Act.

Issues Raised by Collier

Collier argued that the administrative law judge improperly gave “little weight” to the opinion of her treating psychiatrist, Dr. Elishka Caneva. Dr. Caneva had described substantial limitations in Collier’s ability to maintain attention, concentrate, attend work regularly, sustain an ordinary routine, maintain social functioning, and work at a consistent pace. Dr. Caneva also stated that Collier would miss work more than three times per week. The administrative law judge found that opinion inconsistent with Collier’s reported daily activities and treatment records showing generally normal mental-status findings and some improvement with medication.

The court held that the administrative law judge gave good reasons for declining to give Dr. Caneva’s opinion controlling weight. The court noted that Collier had seen Dr. Caneva only three times during the six months before the hearing and that one visit lasted only 20 minutes. The court also relied on treatment notes describing clear speech, normal activity, cooperative behavior, intact thought processes, intact insight and judgment, no hallucinations or delusions, no suicidal or homicidal thoughts, and a response to medication.

Collier also argued that the administrative law judge improperly relied on no expert opinion and should have obtained more evidence, including clarification from Dr. Caneva, a psychiatric examination, or testimony from a psychiatric expert. The court rejected that argument, finding that the record contained sufficient evidence from Collier’s treating sources, including the Family Health Center, Dr. Carli Klinghoffer, Dr. Caneva, and licensed clinical social worker Sasha Thomson. The court found no obvious gaps or ambiguities requiring further development of the record.

Finally, Collier argued that the administrative law judge should have found her disabled based on Dr. Caneva’s opinion and vocational-expert testimony. The vocational expert testified that a person missing work one to two times per month could generally remain employed in unskilled work, while a person absent at least three times per month could not work. The court held that the administrative law judge properly gave little weight to Dr. Caneva’s unsupported absence estimate and therefore was not required to rely on vocational testimony based on that estimate.

Ruling

Judge Sarah Netburn concluded that the administrative law judge’s decision was free of legal error and supported by substantial evidence. “Substantial evidence” means relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The court determined that the administrative law judge properly evaluated the medical opinions, assessed Collier’s work-related limitations, developed the record, and considered the vocational-expert testimony.

The court granted the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied Collier’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Clerk of Court was requested to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 12 and 16.