Withus v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Background

Shannon F. Withus sought judicial review under Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), of the Commissioner of Social Security’s determination that she was not entitled to Supplemental Security Income benefits. Withus alleged disability based on attention deficit disorder, depression, anxiety, and borderline intellectual functioning. She had completed 12th grade with a special education diploma and had never been employed.

The administrative law judge found that Withus had severe impairments including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, depressive disorder, intellectual disability, and borderline intellectual functioning. The administrative law judge found that these impairments did not meet or equal a listed impairment and that Withus had the residual functional capacity—the most she could do despite her impairments—to perform work at all exertional levels, subject to a limitation to simple, basic, unskilled, routine, repetitive work. Relying in part on vocational-expert testimony, the administrative law judge found that significant numbers of jobs existed in the national economy that Withus could perform and concluded that she was not eligible for benefits.

Issues and analysis

Withus objected to Magistrate Judge James L. Cott’s recommendation that her motion for judgment on the pleadings be denied and the Commissioner’s cross-motion be granted. She argued that the administrative law judge improperly evaluated medical opinions, failed to develop the administrative record, relied improperly on evidence that showed temporary improvement or daily activities, and selected only evidence supporting the decision.

The court rejected these arguments. It held that any failure to expressly assign weight to certain opinions was harmless because the administrative law judge discussed the opinions and the reasoning could be inferred from the decision. The court also stated that the opinions of Laura Bernabe, Anne Paden, and Kristin Laux were not entitled to the treating-physician rule’s controlling weight under the regulations applicable to Withus’s 2014 filing. The court found that the record contained extensive treatment records and medical evaluations, with no obvious gaps requiring further development.

The court further concluded that the residual-functional-capacity finding was supported by substantial evidence, including medical opinions, treatment records, Withus’s testimony, and evidence concerning her activities and response to treatment. It found that the administrative law judge did not rely solely on periods of improvement and did not improperly select favorable evidence while ignoring unfavorable evidence.

Ruling

Judge Vernon S. Broderick adopted Magistrate Judge Cott’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety and overruled Withus’s objections. The court denied Withus’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and granted the Commissioner’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings. It directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment for the Commissioner and close the case.