Harrison v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Background

Scott W. Harrison sought judicial review under § 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), after the Social Security Administration denied his application for Disability Insurance Benefits. Harrison alleged that injuries from a December 2014 motor vehicle accident caused chronic neck, back, and hip pain, headaches, cognitive problems, and other limitations. After a hearing, Administrative Law Judge Sandra DiMaggio Wallis found that Harrison was not disabled.

The administrative law judge found that Harrison had several severe impairments, including degenerative conditions in his cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine; nerve problems in his upper extremities; anxiety and depressive disorders; post-concussion syndrome; and migraine headaches. She determined that Harrison had the residual functional capacity—the most he could still do despite his limitations—to perform sedentary work, with restrictions on climbing, balancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, crawling, workplace hazards, and work involving more than simple tasks or routine workplace changes. Although she found that Harrison could not return to his past work as an automobile parts clerk, she found that he could perform jobs such as document preparer, touch-up screener, and callout operator.

Arguments

Harrison argued that the administrative law judge improperly evaluated the medical opinions, including opinions from chiropractors Dr. Stephen Gross and Dr. Patrick Malouf. He also argued that the residual-functional-capacity finding was not supported by substantial evidence and that the vocational expert’s testimony was unreliable because it relied on the Dictionary of Occupational Titles rather than the O*NET database.

The Commissioner argued that the administrative law judge properly evaluated the medical evidence and that substantial evidence supported the finding of no disability. The Commissioner also argued that Harrison’s vocational-testimony argument should not be considered because he raised it for the first time in his reply brief.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that the administrative law judge did not violate the treating-physician rule. Under the regulations applicable to Harrison’s claim, chiropractors were not “acceptable medical sources” whose opinions were entitled to controlling weight under that rule. The court also agreed that the administrative law judge reasonably gave limited weight to Dr. Gross’s opinions because they were largely conclusory, usually stated only that Harrison was disabled or unable to work for temporary periods, and did not provide specific functional limitations. Statements that a claimant is “disabled” or “unable to work” concern an issue reserved to the Commissioner.

The court also rejected Harrison’s argument that the state-agency reviewer’s opinion was stale because it predated some of Dr. Malouf’s records. The later records did not show that Harrison’s condition had deteriorated, and the reviewer had considered substantial medical evidence before issuing the opinion. The court found no material error in the administrative law judge’s treatment of the mental-health evidence from Dr. Ingrid Hansen and Dr. Alison Murphy. The administrative law judge reasonably accounted for difficulties with complex work and multitasking by limiting Harrison to simple tasks and instructions and routine workplace changes.

Applying the deferential substantial-evidence standard, the court concluded that the record contained enough relevant evidence to support the administrative law judge’s residual-functional-capacity finding, even though some evidence could support greater limitations. The court was not permitted to reweigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for the administrative law judge’s judgment when the record supported more than one reasonable interpretation.

The court determined that Harrison waived his challenge to the vocational expert’s testimony because he raised it for the first time in his reply brief. The court nevertheless addressed the argument and found it without merit, concluding that reliance on the Dictionary of Occupational Titles was an accepted basis for vocational testimony under the Commissioner’s rules.

Disposition

Judge Moses denied Harrison’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, granted the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, and dismissed the action. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.