Rosario v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Ivette Rosario brought this action under Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision after a continuing disability review. The review determined that Rosario’s medical condition had improved as of January 13, 2017, so she was no longer eligible for Disability Insurance Benefits or Supplemental Security Income.

Rosario had a long history of bipolar disorder and had previously been found disabled. The record also showed several psychiatric hospitalizations connected to suicide attempts, medication noncompliance, and substance use. At the same time, treatment records from 2016 forward generally described her as stable, with normal mental-status examinations when she complied with treatment. She had one four-day hospitalization in May 2018 after stopping her medication and using alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine, but she improved after resuming medication.

An administrative law judge found that Rosario’s disability ended on January 13, 2017. The judge found that she had bipolar disorder, lumbar degenerative disc disease, a left knee Baker’s cyst, and bilateral myopia, but that none of those impairments met or equaled a listed impairment. The judge determined that Rosario could perform light work with restrictions, including unskilled, repetitive work; limited close contact with supervisors and coworkers; no close contact with the public; and no assembly-line production quotas. Relying on vocational-expert testimony, the judge found that she could perform jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Rosario’s Arguments

Rosario argued that the administrative law judge violated the treating-physician rule by giving little weight to opinions from her treating psychiatrist, Mark Rybakov, D.O. She also argued that the judge improperly evaluated her reports of symptoms by considering her occasional failure to take medication without adequately examining the reasons for that noncompliance. Finally, she argued that the judge failed to account for all of her mental limitations when determining her residual functional capacity and questioning the vocational expert.

The Commissioner argued that substantial evidence supported the administrative law judge’s findings concerning the listed impairment, Rosario’s symptoms, her residual functional capacity, and the medical opinions.

Court’s Analysis

Judge Barbara Moses held that the administrative law judge did not violate the treating-physician rule. The rule applied because Rosario’s claim began before March 27, 2017, but a treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight when it is unsupported or inconsistent with the record. The court explained that opinions about whether a claimant meets a listed impairment or is unable to work address issues reserved to the Commissioner and therefore do not receive controlling weight under that rule.

The court found that the administrative law judge reasonably gave little weight to Dr. Rybakov’s February 23, 2017 letter stating that Rosario could not sustain consistent part-time work. The letter did not provide a functional analysis and was inconsistent with Dr. Rybakov’s treatment records, which generally showed normal functioning when Rosario complied with medication. The court also found that the administrative law judge could not have erred in weighing Dr. Rybakov’s November 22, 2019 diagnosis form because that form was prepared after the administrative law judge issued the decision. Although the form was part of the record before the court, it did not establish legal error by the administrative law judge, and its check-box opinions were conclusory and unsupported by detailed analysis.

The court also rejected Rosario’s challenge to the evaluation of her symptoms. Judge Moses explained that the administrative law judge did not treat Rosario’s occasional medication noncompliance as evidence against her claim. Instead, the judge recognized that Rosario generally pursued treatment and that her condition was controlled when she followed her medication regimen. The court therefore concluded that the administrative law judge was not required to investigate possible reasons for noncompliance in the manner Rosario urged.

The court further held that substantial evidence supported the administrative law judge’s findings under Listing 12.04, which concerns depressive, bipolar, and related disorders. The judge reasonably found mild or moderate limitations in the relevant areas of mental functioning and found no evidence of the required marginal adjustment for the alternative criteria. Rosario’s daily activities, treatment records, and generally stable condition supported those findings.

Finally, the court held that substantial evidence supported the residual functional capacity determination. The restrictions to unskilled, repetitive, low-contact work without assembly-line quotas addressed Rosario’s documented mental limitations. The court acknowledged that some evidence could support greater limitations, but explained that its review was deferential and that it could not replace the administrative law judge’s judgment when substantial evidence supported the decision.

Disposition

The court concluded that the administrative law judge’s decision was free from legal error and supported by substantial evidence. Rosario’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was DENIED, the Commissioner’s motion was GRANTED, and the action was dismissed. The court also directed the Clerk of Court to strike the earlier opinion and order because the April 1, 2022 opinion was amended.