O'Connell v. Berryhill

Background

Lee O’Connell sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying his application for disability insurance benefits. O’Connell alleged that right ankle pain after two surgeries, right knee pain, and a torn right shoulder labrum prevented him from working. He had previously worked as a corrections officer.

The administrative law judge found that O’Connell had severe impairments involving his right ankle, shoulders, left wrist and hand, right knee, and sleep apnea. The judge determined that he could perform light work with restrictions: he could stand or walk for only two hours during an eight-hour workday, rarely climb stairs or squat, occasionally push or pull on the right, frequently but not continually reach overhead on the right, and could not work at heights or with unprotected machinery. Although he could not return to his corrections-officer job, a vocational expert testified that a person with those limitations could perform work as a parking-lot attendant, marker, or ticket taker. The administrative law judge therefore found that O’Connell was not disabled.

After the Supreme Court’s decision in Carr v. Saul, the court asked whether O’Connell wanted a new hearing before a constitutionally appointed administrative law judge based on an appointments challenge. O’Connell’s counsel informed the court that he did not seek a remand on that issue.

Arguments

The Commissioner moved for judgment on the pleadings, asking the court to uphold the agency’s decision. O’Connell cross-moved for judgment on the pleadings and sought a remand for further administrative proceedings. He argued that the administrative law judge:

- failed to assess his residual functional capacity on a detailed, function-by-function basis; - did not adequately address the medical findings of Dr. Charles Kaplan, a treating physician; and - failed to develop the administrative record fully.

Court’s Analysis

The court reviewed whether the Commissioner used the correct legal standards and whether the decision was supported by substantial evidence, meaning relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate. The court emphasized that it could not decide the disability question anew or replace the Commissioner’s judgment when the decision rested on adequate findings supported by evidence.

Residual functional capacity. The court rejected the argument that the administrative law judge was required to remand the case merely because the decision did not expressly discuss every limitation in a separate function-by-function format. Under Second Circuit law, an explicit function-by-function analysis is not automatically required when the decision provides a sufficient basis for meaningful review, uses the correct standards, and is supported by substantial evidence.

The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the residual functional capacity finding. The administrative law judge gave substantial weight to the opinion of Dr. Julia Kaci, who found marked limitations in walking, standing, squatting, and climbing stairs; moderate limitations in lifting, carrying, and pushing or pulling with the right shoulder; and mild limitations in reaching overhead with the right arm. The court found that these conclusions were consistent with Dr. Kaci’s examination and with findings from Dr. Kaplan and other medical providers.

The court also found no reversible error in the lack of a specific discussion of O’Connell’s left wrist and hand. O’Connell had not identified the wrist as a condition limiting his ability to work in his benefits application, did not testify that it prevented him from working, had intact hand and finger function during Dr. Kaci’s examination, and had not sought medical treatment for the wrist or hand after 2015. The court concluded that the record supported a finding that the wrist and hand condition did not interfere with his ability to work.

Medical opinions. The court rejected O’Connell’s argument that the administrative law judge ignored Dr. Kaplan’s findings. The decision referred to Dr. Kaplan’s examinations and used his observations, including moderate ankle swelling, a mildly abnormal gait, and difficulty squatting, in determining O’Connell’s limitations.

The court explained that opinions from a treating medical source may receive controlling weight when well supported and consistent with the record, but they do not automatically control when contradicted by substantial evidence. The court found that the administrative law judge appropriately considered Dr. Kaplan’s records and reasonably gave substantial weight to Dr. Kaci’s opinion because it was consistent with the overall medical record, the generally conservative treatment, and O’Connell’s reported activities. The court also noted that workers’ compensation standards differ from Social Security disability standards, so workers’ compensation impairment findings did not control the Social Security determination.

Development of the record. The court rejected O’Connell’s claim that the administrative law judge should have obtained an additional specific residual-functional-capacity opinion from Dr. Kaplan. The administrative record contained extensive treatment records from Dr. Kaplan and other providers, radiology reports, and the consultative examination. Because the record had no obvious gaps and contained enough evidence to evaluate O’Connell’s functional capacity, the court found that the administrative law judge satisfied the duty to develop the record.

Other work. The court also upheld the step-five finding that O’Connell could adjust to other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy. The court found that the residual functional capacity was properly supported and that the administrative law judge reasonably relied on the vocational expert’s testimony concerning parking-lot attendant, marker, and ticket-taker positions.

Disposition

The Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted. O’Connell’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings was denied. The court directed the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of the Commissioner. The opinion does not state that the motions were granted or denied with or without prejudice.