Moore v. Saul

Background

Michael Moore sought disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. He alleged that he became unable to work on May 18, 2018, because of reactive airway disease and asthma, rhinitis and sinusitis, left shoulder and knee problems, and degenerative disease in his thoracic and lumbar spine. The Social Security Administration denied his application and later denied reconsideration. After a hearing, Administrative Law Judge Brian Lemoine found that Moore was not disabled. The Appeals Council denied review, making the administrative judge’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision.

Moore then filed this case and moved for judgment on the pleadings, asking the court to rule in his favor based on the administrative record. The Commissioner filed a cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings. Moore argued that his impairments, individually or together, were medically equal to a listed impairment and that the administrative judge’s finding that he could perform a range of light work was not supported by substantial evidence. He also argued that the Appeals Council should have given greater effect to additional evidence, including a vocational evaluation by Brian Daly.

Court’s Analysis

The court reviewed the Commissioner’s decision to determine whether it was supported by substantial evidence—relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate—and whether the correct legal standards were used. The court explained that a claimant must satisfy all of the medical criteria for a listed impairment. It concluded that the administrative judge properly considered the listings most relevant to Moore’s shoulder, knee, back, and respiratory conditions and that substantial evidence supported the conclusion that Moore’s impairments did not meet or equal any listing. The court also concluded that Moore had not provided enough medical findings to show that the combination of his impairments equaled a listed impairment.

The court considered the additional evidence submitted to the Appeals Council, including Daly’s employability evaluation. The court stated that the evaluation related to the period before the administrative judge’s decision, but concluded that it was not material because it did not outweigh the evidence supporting the decision. The court found Daly’s opinion persuasive insofar as it showed that Moore could not perform the full range of light work, but found unpersuasive Daly’s opinion that Moore could not perform sedentary work. The court relied on evidence that Moore drove, prepared basic meals, did laundry, did light yard work, helped his children, attended their sporting events, and had only mild limitations in sitting, standing, and reaching with his left arm.

The administrative judge determined that Moore could perform light work with no overhead reaching using his left arm, no more than occasional specified postural activities, and no concentrated exposure to dust, odors, fumes, or gases. Because those limitations reduced the range of available light work, the administrative judge relied on vocational-expert testimony. That expert identified survey worker, sales attendant, and photocopy machine operator as jobs Moore could perform and said those jobs existed in significant numbers nationally. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the finding that Moore was not disabled.

Disposition

Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. denied Moore’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and granted the Commissioner’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court held that the administrative judge’s decision was not erroneous and was supported by substantial evidence. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.