Sampson v. Berryhill

Background

Marlon Sampson sued under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which allows federal-court review of a final Social Security decision. He challenged the denial of his application for disability insurance benefits. Sampson alleged problems involving his right leg and hands, arthritis, knee, wrist, and shoulder pain, and chronic breathing problems.

An administrative law judge held a hearing on October 2, 2018, at which Sampson was represented by counsel and a vocational expert testified. On October 18, 2018, the administrative law judge found that Sampson was not disabled during the relevant period. The judge found severe impairments involving both knees, both wrists, and the right shoulder, but concluded that Sampson could perform limited medium or sedentary work, including his prior work as a surveillance systems monitor and correctional officer. The Social Security Appeals Council later denied review.

The parties filed competing motions for judgment on the pleadings, asking the court to decide the case based on the existing administrative record. Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn recommended granting the Commissioner’s motion and denying Sampson’s motion. Sampson objected to that recommendation.

Issues and Analysis

Sampson raised three objections. First, he argued that the administrative law judge failed to discuss or reconcile evidence concerning his residual functional capacity, meaning the work-related activities he could still perform despite his impairments. He pointed to a consultative examiner’s finding that he could squat less than one-quarter of the way down and to a workers’ compensation report stating that he had a 100% temporary disability.

The court rejected this objection. It explained that the consultative examiner’s squat finding was an examination result, not a medical opinion that the administrative law judge had to accept. The administrative law judge had addressed the examiner’s report generally and gave the findings some weight; the judge was not required to discuss every examination finding individually. The court also found that the workers’ compensation disability statement did not require substantial weight because workers’ compensation and Social Security use different disability standards, and the statement addressed an issue reserved for the Commissioner. The court further noted that the report did not establish that Sampson was unable to work throughout the relevant period.

Second, Sampson challenged the evaluation of his statements about pain. He argued that the administrative law judge failed to consider his fear of surgery and his testimony that a doctor had advised him that surgery would not restore his knee to 100% function. The court found that the administrative law judge expressly considered the physician’s advice and was not required to separately emphasize Sampson’s brief statement that he “got scared.” The administrative law judge also considered medical records, Sampson’s ability to walk without a cane, physical therapy, and a cortisone injection. The court held that the pain assessment was supported by substantial evidence.

Third, Sampson argued that the administrative law judge failed to develop the record. Although this argument had not been raised before the magistrate judge, the district court considered it and rejected it. The court found no obligation to obtain additional evidence about the risks of surgery, because Sampson’s brief statement about being scared did not require further investigation. The record already contained medical summaries of wrist magnetic resonance imaging, so the original images were not required. Finally, the agency had made an initial request and a follow-up request for Dr. Henoch’s medical records, satisfying its duty to make reasonable efforts to obtain the evidence. The court found that the missing progress report did not constitute harmful error because other records described and explained the doctor’s disability finding.

Standard of Review

The court explained that it could overturn the Commissioner’s decision only if the factual findings lacked substantial evidence or the decision rested on legal error. Substantial evidence means relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The court applied this deferential standard while reviewing the portions of the magistrate judge’s recommendation to which Sampson objected.

Disposition

The court adopted the Report and Recommendation in full. The Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, Sampson’s motion was denied, the pending motions were terminated, and the case was closed. Judge Paul A. Engelmayer signed the order on October 16, 2020.