Olmo v. Berryhill

Background

Richard Olmo brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), asking the district court to review the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of his application for disability insurance benefits. Olmo alleged that he became disabled on August 31, 2013. His application was denied administratively, and an administrative law judge held a hearing on October 27, 2017. Olmo was represented by counsel at that hearing.

On January 31, 2018, Administrative Law Judge Robert Gonzalez determined that Olmo was not disabled under the Social Security Act. The Appeals Council denied review on November 6, 2018. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Judith C. McCarthy, who recommended denying Olmo’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and granting the Commissioner’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Olmo’s objections

Olmo objected to the report and recommendation on three grounds. He argued that the Commissioner should have considered new evidence submitted to the Appeals Council; that the administrative law judge improperly applied the treating-physician rule, which concerns the weight given to opinions from doctors who treat a claimant; and that the administrative law judge improperly evaluated Olmo’s reports of pain and limitations.

The district court stated that these objections largely repeated the arguments Olmo had already made in his motion. Because the objections did not present new arguments, the court reviewed the report and recommendation for clear error and found none. The court also stated that it would reach the same result under the more searching review that applies to specific objections.

Medical-evidence analysis

The court stated that the administrative law judge’s finding that Olmo was not disabled was supported by substantial evidence in the record. The administrative law judge recognized several impairments, including a post-gunshot wound, obesity, degenerative disc disease in the lumbar and cervical spine, hip internal derangement, and right foot drop, but found that Olmo did not have an impairment or combination of impairments meeting the applicable listing threshold.

The administrative law judge gave little weight to Dr. Anamika Jain’s opinion because Olmo saw her only once, she did not perform an independent medical examination, her report relied on Olmo’s subjective responses and other physicians’ records, and her findings were inconsistent with treatment notes. The district court agreed that Dr. Jain’s findings did not warrant the weight given to a treating physician’s opinion.

The administrative law judge also gave less weight to Dr. R.C. Krishna’s opinion. Dr. Krishna had examined Olmo on two occasions and identified spinal and nerve-related conditions, but the court noted that his records described sporadic pain rather than consistent, debilitating, or severe pain. The court also found that his range-of-motion findings were inconsistent with other evidence, including primary-care records showing minimal positive findings, limited conservative treatment, mild decreases in range of motion and lower-extremity flexion, and other examinations showing no restriction or loss of range of motion.

The administrative law judge gave some, but not controlling, weight to Dr. Shehzad Ali’s consultative orthopedic examination. Dr. Ali found a normal gait, no need for assistance rising from or sitting in a chair, negative straight-leg-raise tests, and full cervical-spine flexion and extension, while also finding moderate restrictions related to back and right-hip pain. The court stated that much of Dr. Ali’s assessment was consistent with the records of Olmo’s primary-care physicians.

Additional evidence

A regulation effective in May 2017 generally required Olmo to submit records to the administrative law judge at least five days before the hearing, subject to stated exceptions. The court stated that Olmo did not timely submit the additional records and did not provide a relevant excuse for doing so. He submitted them to the Appeals Council after the administrative law judge denied his claim.

The additional records included treatment notes from Dr. Krishna covering February 2016 through December 2017. The court stated that the notes mostly contained test results, findings, conclusions, and impressions similar to those in the earlier records, although Dr. Krishna later determined that Olmo was 100 percent disabled. The Appeals Council found that the new evidence was largely cumulative and would not have changed the decision, and the district court accepted that analysis.

Disposition

Judge Nelson S. Roman adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety. The court denied Olmo’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and granted the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. It directed the Clerk to enter judgment for the Commissioner, terminate the motions, and close the case.