Finn v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Tyrone M. Finn sought judicial review under Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act after the Social Security Administration denied his application for Disability Insurance Benefits. He alleged disability from March 12, 2018, through July 11, 2019, based primarily on injuries involving his back, left shoulder, and left leg, as well as anxiety. An administrative law judge found that Finn was not disabled, and the Appeals Council later declined review, making that decision the Commissioner’s final decision.

Finn worked as a tractor-trailer driver until the alleged onset date. The record stated that he returned to driving three days per week by January 2019 and fully returned to work by July 11, 2019. At the administrative hearing, he described pain and limits on standing, walking, driving, and remaining in one position. He also testified that medication helped but made him sleepy.

The administrative law judge found severe impairments including obesity, bilateral L5 radiculopathy, degenerative disc disease, a left shoulder impairment, diabetes, neuropathy, and hypertension. The judge determined that Finn did not meet a listed impairment and had the residual functional capacity—the most he could still do despite his impairments—to perform sedentary work with limitations. Those limits included a sit-stand option every 20 to 30 minutes, restrictions on climbing and other physical activities, limited left-leg pushing and pulling, frequent reaching in front and behind, and avoiding hazards and moving machinery. Although Finn could not return to his past work, the judge found that he could perform three other jobs identified by a vocational expert.

Issues and analysis

Finn moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the residual-functional-capacity finding lacked substantial evidentiary support and that the administrative law judge improperly evaluated his testimony about the intensity, persistence, and effects of his symptoms. The Commissioner cross-moved for judgment on the pleadings.

The court rejected Finn’s argument about medication side effects. It found that the administrative law judge considered the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of his medications as required by the applicable regulation. The court also found that the medical record did not show side effects severe enough to require additional work restrictions. Among other things, the record showed that Finn had returned to driving, was no longer taking opioids as of January 2019, experienced substantial improvement after a procedure, and continued performing activities such as driving, preparing some meals, caring for his daughter, and attending church.

The court also rejected Finn’s argument concerning Dr. Omar’s recommendation that he avoid sitting for long periods. The court said the recommendation was prescriptive rather than a medical opinion describing what Finn could still do despite his impairments. In any event, the court found that the administrative law judge considered Dr. Omar’s treatment notes and incorporated the recommendation into the sit-stand limitation. The court also found that an apparent reference to being unable to climb “ramps” was a harmless typographical error, because the surrounding record indicated that the intended word was “ropes.”

Regarding Finn’s symptom testimony, the court found that the administrative law judge reasonably considered his daily activities, treatment benefits, and medical findings. The court noted evidence that Finn could cook, drive locally, attend church, care for his daughter, make short trips, and sometimes meet others for dinner. It also cited an examination showing a normal gait and stance and an opinion describing only mild-to-moderate restrictions. Because courts may not reweigh evidence or replace the administrative law judge’s reasonable factual findings, the court declined to disturb the symptom assessment.

Disposition

The court held that substantial evidence supported the administrative law judge’s residual-functional-capacity assessment and evaluation of Finn’s symptoms. It DENIED Finn’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and GRANTED the Commissioner’s cross-motion. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motions and close the case.