McMillian v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Artilla Shrease McMillian sought review under the Social Security Act of the Commissioner’s decision that she was not disabled from December 28, 2015, through May 30, 2019. She applied for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income in September 2017. After the applications were denied and Administrative Law Judge Kimberly L. Schiro denied them following a hearing, the Appeals Council declined review. The administrative judge’s decision then became the final agency decision.

McMillian was represented by counsel. She reported impairments involving her lumbar spine, knee, asthma, allergies, migraines, depression, anxiety, and bipolar disorder. She argued that the administrative judge’s residual functional capacity assessment—the finding about the most work a person can still perform despite medical limitations—was not supported by substantial evidence because the judge mishandled the reports of Dr. Oshidar, her chiropractor, and failed to properly account for her mental limitations.

Administrative Decision

The administrative judge found severe impairments including left-knee osteoarthritis, a lumbar impairment, asthma, depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, and obesity. The judge determined that these impairments did not meet or medically equal the requirements of the listed impairments in the regulations.

The administrative judge found that McMillian could perform simple, routine sedentary work, with several restrictions. She could not climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds or work around moving mechanical parts or unprotected heights. She could occasionally perform several other postural activities, could not have concentrated exposure to specified environmental conditions, could have occasional contact with coworkers and supervisors but no work-related contact with the public, had to stand and stretch for one to two minutes after sitting for one hour, and had to use a cane for walking.

Based on McMillian’s age, education, work experience, and this work-capacity assessment, and relying on written responses from a vocational expert, the administrative judge found that jobs such as eyeglass-frame polisher, document preparer, and addresser existed in significant numbers in the national economy. The administrative judge therefore found that McMillian was not disabled during the relevant period.

Court’s Analysis

The court reviewed whether substantial evidence supported the residual functional capacity assessment. Substantial evidence means evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate to support the conclusion.

Dr. Oshidar’s opinions. The court held that the administrative judge properly treated statements that McMillian was “temporarily totally disabled” or could not return to work as issues reserved to the Commissioner. Those statements therefore were not entitled to special significance as proof of disability under the Act.

The court also found that the administrative judge considered the other portions of Dr. Oshidar’s reports, including lifting and other physical restrictions, but reasonably found them less persuasive because they were inconsistent with Dr. Oshidar’s examination findings, other medical evidence, and indications that McMillian could improve with treatment. The court cited evidence including an MRI showing mild degenerative disc disease without disc herniation or certain forms of spinal compromise, generally normal strength and range-of-motion findings, improvement after knee surgeries and chiropractic care, and later reports of limited or controlled pain.

The court rejected McMillian’s argument that the administrative judge had to contact Dr. Oshidar to clarify a lifting restriction described as no more than “a grocery bag.” The court concluded that the existing evidence was sufficient for the administrative judge to decide the disability question. It also rejected the argument that the administrative judge improperly selected only favorable evidence, finding that Dr. Oshidar’s reports included numerous examinations focused on the lower extremities and back and that the administrative judge considered the medical evidence as a whole.

Mental limitations. The court rejected McMillian’s argument that the administrative judge failed to account for moderate limitations in understanding, remembering, and applying information, and in concentrating, persisting, and maintaining pace. The court explained that the ratings used at earlier steps of the disability analysis are not themselves the residual functional capacity assessment.

The administrative judge reviewed mental-health records and McMillian’s testimony and found that her memory, thinking, attention, and concentration were generally intact. The judge also considered her reported daily activities, including caring for her children, doing household tasks, reading, writing short stories, and shopping. The court concluded that limiting McMillian to simple, routine tasks, along with limited workplace interaction, reasonably accounted for the supported mental limitations. The court also upheld the finding that the record did not support additional restrictions for depression, anxiety, or bipolar disorder.

Disposition

Judge Katharine H. Parker concluded that the administrative judge’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and should not be disturbed. The court DENIED Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and GRANTED Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.