Collado v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Lusaida Collado sought review of the Social Security Administration’s final decision denying her applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. She alleged that she became disabled on May 1, 2014. After a hearing, the administrative law judge found that Collado had depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, a right shoulder impairment, hypertension, and obesity, but was not disabled.

The administrative law judge found that Collado could not perform her past relevant work but could perform other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy. The judge assessed a residual functional capacity—the most a person can still do despite her impairments—of medium work with restrictions involving reaching, noise, dangerous conditions, driving, task complexity, workplace interactions, changes in the work setting, English communication, and learning new tasks. The decision identified jobs including coffee maker, store laborer, and hospital cleaner.

Collado and the Commissioner each moved for judgment on the pleadings, asking the court to decide the case based on the administrative record and the parties’ written submissions. Collado challenged the evaluation of her treating psychiatrist’s opinion, the failure to address possible monthly absences, the assessment of the mental-health listing criteria, and the evaluation of her subjective statements. The Commissioner argued that the administrative law judge’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and should be affirmed.

Court’s Analysis

Medical opinions. The court held that the administrative law judge properly applied the regulations governing claims filed after March 27, 2017. Under those regulations, the administrative law judge did not have to give a medical opinion controlling or special weight, but had to evaluate its persuasiveness, especially its supportability and consistency with the record.

The administrative law judge reasonably found the opinions of treating psychiatrist Dr. Lorena Grullon-Figueroa and consultative examiner Dr. Toula Georgiou unpersuasive. Dr. Grullon-Figueroa’s checkbox assessment was unsupported by explanations, test results, or the rest of the medical record. The court also found that Dr. Georgiou’s conclusions were inadequately explained and inconsistent with portions of her own examination notes. The court concluded that the administrative law judge had a complete record and was not required to seek additional information from Dr. Georgiou.

The court upheld the administrative law judge’s reliance on Dr. Bhutwala’s opinion even though Dr. Bhutwala did not examine Collado in person. The opinion stated that a nonexamining source’s conclusions may be relied on when supported by evidence in the record. Here, the court found support in years of clinical notes showing episodes of depression and anxiety but overall stability with medication and therapy, as well as limited evidence of cognitive impairment. The court also found that any failure to explain more fully why Dr. Bhutwala’s opinion was persuasive while Dr. Georgiou’s was not was harmless because the administrative law judge adequately explained the problems with Dr. Georgiou’s opinion.

Possible work absences. The administrative law judge did not address possible absences from work in the written decision. The vocational expert had testified that a person could not maintain competitive employment if absent more than one day per month or off task more than 10 percent of the time. The court nevertheless found the omission harmless because the only medical professional who addressed Collado’s potential absences was Dr. Grullon-Figueroa, whose opinion the administrative law judge properly found unpersuasive. The court also cited evidence supporting the conclusion that Collado could maintain regular attendance.

Residual functional capacity and mental limitations. The court held that substantial evidence supported the residual functional capacity assessment. It identified three main sources of support: Collado’s reported daily activities, clinical notes covering several years, and Dr. Bhutwala’s opinion. The court stated that the record showed Collado could perform activities such as watching television, preparing simple meals, and grocery shopping, and that treatment generally stabilized her depression and anxiety.

The administrative law judge found moderate limitations in understanding, remembering, or applying information; interacting with others; concentrating, persisting, or maintaining pace; and adapting or managing herself. The court concluded that the administrative law judge sufficiently explained how the evidence supported those findings and the related work restrictions. The court noted, among other things, that examinations showed limited or no memory deficit, intact thought processes, intact insight and judgment, and no major attention or calculation deficits. The resulting restrictions to unskilled work, limited interaction, limited workplace changes, and simple English communication adequately reflected the findings, according to the court.

Subjective statements. The court also upheld the evaluation of Collado’s statements about the severity of her symptoms. The administrative law judge found that Collado’s medically determinable impairments could cause her symptoms, but that her statements about their intensity and limiting effects were not fully consistent with the medical and other evidence. The court found that this conclusion was supported by the record, including a neurologist’s finding that Collado had no cognitive defects and clinical records that did not confirm the extent of her alleged memory problems. The administrative law judge also incorporated some of Collado’s allegations into the residual functional capacity restrictions.

Disposition

The court denied Collado’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and granted the Commissioner’s cross-motion. Judge James L. Cott directed the Clerk to mark Collado’s motion as denied, mark the Commissioner’s motion as granted, and enter judgment for the Commissioner.