Mota v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Yasneriz Mota sought review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying her application for supplemental security income. She alleged disability based on degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, asthma, bipolar disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder, among other conditions mentioned during the administrative process. The administrative law judge denied her application on September 4, 2019, and the Appeals Council denied review.

The administrative law judge found that Mota had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since May 24, 2017, and that her lumbar spine condition, asthma, bipolar disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder were severe impairments. The judge determined that these impairments did not meet or medically equal a listed disability. The judge then found that Mota could perform light work with restrictions on climbing, balancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, crawling, exposure to pulmonary irritants, public contact, teamwork, and the complexity of work tasks. Although she could not perform her past work as a hair stylist, the judge concluded—based in part on vocational expert testimony—that she could perform other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Mota’s Arguments

Mota argued that the administrative law judge failed to properly consider opinions from Nurse Practitioner Patrick Tigenoah, Evelyn Vega and Dr. Karamchand Rameshwar, and Dr. Pavel Alexandrov. Those opinions described significant mental and physical limitations, including likely frequent absences and difficulty sustaining full-time work. Mota also argued that the judge failed to incorporate all of Dr. E. Kamin’s findings into the residual functional capacity assessment, failed to address the effect of her possible absences, and relied improperly on the vocational expert’s testimony.

At the final step of the disability analysis, Mota further argued that the hypothetical questions to the vocational expert should have included her alleged inability to communicate in English and her obesity.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that the administrative law judge properly evaluated the medical opinions under the regulations applicable to applications filed after March 27, 2017. Those regulations require consideration principally of an opinion’s supportability and consistency with the record rather than giving a treating source’s opinion automatic controlling weight.

The court agreed that the opinions of Nurse Practitioner Tigenoah, Vega and Dr. Rameshwar, and Dr. Alexandrov were unsupported by and inconsistent with other evidence. The mental-health records often showed generally benign examinations, including findings that Mota was alert and had good intellectual functioning and concentration. The physical records from Dr. Phat Tran repeatedly stated that Mota could sit comfortably, walk four to five blocks, use public transportation, and perform normal activities. Imaging showed mild disc bulging and mild or moderate narrowing rather than findings supporting Dr. Alexandrov’s more restrictive opinion. The court also noted that other providers found Mota able to walk without an assistive device.

The court rejected Mota’s argument that the administrative law judge’s finding of moderate mental limitations required a disability finding. The judge reasonably found that Mota could perform simple tasks, and the evidence did not establish that she would be absent more than once a month or off task more than ten percent of the workday. The court also found sufficient evidence supporting the conclusion that Mota would not miss more than one workday per month.

The court held that the administrative law judge properly relied on the vocational expert’s testimony. The expert identified, among other positions, production assembler and electrical equipment sub-assembler jobs, each with 9,600 positions nationally, and a document preparer position with 30,000 positions nationally. The court found that these numbers supported the conclusion that significant work existed.

The court also found substantial evidence supporting the administrative law judge’s conclusion that Mota could communicate in English. Although she used an interpreter at the hearing, she answered most questions before translation and told the judge that she understood and could speak English. As to obesity, the court found no evidence that Mota had been diagnosed with obesity or that her providers considered her weight a significant factor affecting her ability to work. The court concluded that the administrative law judge’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and free of legal error.

Disposition

Judge Sarah Netburn denied Mota’s motion, granted the Commissioner’s motion, and dismissed the action with prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate the parties’ motions.