DuBois v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Carol DuBois sought judicial review under § 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), after the Commissioner denied her application for Disability Insurance Benefits. She alleged disability beginning January 26, 2017, based on physical injuries and conditions, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder. The administrative law judge found several physical impairments severe, but found DuBois’s depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder non-severe, meaning they caused no more than minimal limits on basic work activities.

The administrative law judge determined that DuBois could perform sedentary work with several physical restrictions, including limits on climbing, balancing, reaching with her left arm, fingering with her right hand, and exposure to certain hazards. The assessment included no express mental-health restrictions. At the final step of the disability analysis, the administrative law judge found that DuBois could perform jobs such as telephone solicitor, surveillance system monitor, or election clerk.

Issues and Analysis

DuBois argued that the administrative law judge improperly failed to include mental-health restrictions in the residual functional capacity assessment, despite finding mild limitations in four areas of mental functioning. She also argued that the administrative law judge improperly discounted the opinions of Alison Murphy, Ph.D., who performed a psychiatric evaluation, and M. Momot-Baker, Ph.D., a state-agency reviewer.

The court rejected the first argument. It explained that an administrative law judge must consider non-severe impairments when determining residual functional capacity, but need not include a specific work restriction for every non-severe impairment. The court found that the administrative law judge considered DuBois’s lack of mental-health treatment and medication after her alleged onset date, the largely normal mental-status examinations, and her daily activities. On that record, the absence of a specific mental-health or social-contact restriction was not error.

The court also upheld the evaluation of the medical opinions. Under the regulations applicable to DuBois’s application, the administrative law judge was not required to give a medical opinion a particular level of weight. Instead, the administrative law judge had to consider, especially, how well an opinion was supported by the source’s own findings and how consistent it was with the overall record. The court concluded that the administrative law judge reasonably found Dr. Murphy’s opinion unpersuasive because it was based on a one-time examination, conflicted with the mostly normal examination findings, and was inconsistent with the lack of ongoing psychiatric treatment, medication, or other psychiatric complications. The court likewise upheld the finding that Dr. Momot-Baker’s opinion was unpersuasive because it relied largely on Dr. Murphy’s report.

Disposition

Applying the deferential substantial-evidence standard, the court held that the administrative law judge’s residual functional capacity finding was adequately supported, even though some evidence could support greater limitations. Judge Barbara Moses denied DuBois’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, granted the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissed the action, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.