Jaquez v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Ychel Marie Jaquez sought review of an administrative law judge’s September 4, 2018 decision finding her ineligible for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act and Supplemental Security Income under Title XVI. She alleged disability beginning October 31, 2015. The administrative law judge found that Jaquez had several severe impairments, including disc bulging or herniation, sciatica, depressive disorder, impulse control disorder, anxiety disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder.

The administrative law judge determined that Jaquez could perform light work with several physical, environmental, and mental restrictions. These included no climbing of ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; only occasional use of foot or leg controls; avoidance of certain environmental conditions; simple, routine, unskilled work; limited interaction with supervisors and coworkers; no interaction with the general public; and no fast-paced or high-production work. The administrative law judge found that Jaquez could not perform her past work but could perform jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy, including routing clerk, mail sorter, and marking clerk. The judge also found that sedentary, unskilled jobs would be available even if Jaquez were limited to sedentary work.

Parties’ arguments

Jaquez argued that the residual functional capacity—the most work a person can do despite her limitations—was not supported by substantial evidence. She contended that the administrative law judge failed to account properly for her obesity, degenerative disc disease and related physical limitations, and anxiety, depression, and impulse disorder. She also argued that the administrative law judge improperly evaluated medical opinions and relied on an incomplete hypothetical question to the vocational expert.

The Commissioner argued that the decision was supported by substantial evidence. The Commissioner pointed to physical examinations showing, among other things, normal or largely normal gait, negative straight-leg testing, no neurological deficits, and generally preserved strength. The Commissioner also argued that the administrative law judge properly considered the medical opinions, obesity, treatment evidence, and Jaquez’s reported improvement with medication.

Court’s analysis

Judge Fox rejected Jaquez’s obesity argument. The court explained that the administrative law judge considered obesity at the second step of the disability analysis, found that it was not a severe impairment, and explained the residual functional capacity findings. The court also noted that the consultative examiners recorded Jaquez’s height and weight but did not diagnose obesity or identify work limitations caused by it. The court concluded that the administrative law judge complied with Social Security Ruling 02-1p and that remand was not warranted on this ground.

The court also upheld the evaluation of Jaquez’s physical limitations. It found that the administrative law judge properly considered the differing opinions about Jaquez’s ability to sit, stand, walk, and perform other activities. The court agreed with the reasons given for assigning partial weight to some opinions and little weight to others, including that certain opinions were based on a single examination, were vague, imposed only temporary restrictions, or conflicted with examination findings and other record evidence. The court concluded that the physical residual functional capacity finding was supported by substantial evidence.

Regarding Jaquez’s mental limitations, the court rejected her argument that the administrative law judge improperly relied on Dr. Fatin Nahi, finding that the record identified Dr. Nahi as a psychiatrist. The court declined to consider Jaquez’s separate argument about Dr. Arlene Rupp-Goolnick because she raised it for the first time in her reply brief. The court found substantial evidence supporting the administrative law judge’s assessment of Jaquez’s statements about the intensity and effects of her symptoms. It also upheld the weights assigned to the opinions of Dr. Rupp-Goolnick and Dr. Daniel Cohen, citing the reasons the administrative law judge gave for finding those opinions vague, inconsistent with observations, inconsistent with other evidence, or based largely on Jaquez’s subjective reports.

Disposition

The court held that the administrative law judge’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and did not contain legal error. The court denied Jaquez’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, granted the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, and affirmed the administrative law judge’s September 4, 2018 decision.