Diaz v. Saul

Background

Jessica Diaz sought judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner’s final decision denying her application for disability insurance benefits. The opinion’s caption identifies Kilolo Kijakazi as the defendant and explains that she was substituted for Andrew Saul as Acting Commissioner. The case was decided on the parties’ cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings, a procedure asking the court to decide the case from the pleadings and administrative record.

Diaz alleged disability beginning October 8, 2018. She had carpal tunnel syndrome, degenerative disc disease, depression, and a history of breast cancer treatment, among other conditions discussed in the administrative record. She testified about pain and limitations involving her hands, back, and ability to perform daily activities. She appeared at the administrative hearing with counsel.

The administrative law judge found severe impairments consisting of the effects of carpal tunnel release, degenerative disc disease, and asthma. The judge found that Diaz could perform light work with limits on overhead reaching, handling and fingering, and exposure to certain environmental irritants. Although Diaz could not return to her past work as a supervisor or paralegal, the judge found that she could perform other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Diaz’s arguments

Diaz argued that the administrative law judge failed to properly evaluate her breast-cancer treatment and obesity, improperly assessed her residual functional capacity, inadequately considered the opinion of consultative examiner Dr. John Fkiaras, and failed to properly evaluate her statements about pain and other symptoms.

Court’s analysis

The court rejected Diaz’s arguments. It concluded that the administrative law judge adequately considered the records concerning her bilateral mastectomy and reconstruction. The court noted evidence that the procedures appeared to have gone well, that there was no evidence of invasive carcinoma after the operation, that sentinel lymph nodes appeared negative, and that Diaz reported feeling well with adequate pain control. The court also upheld the administrative law judge’s decision to find Dr. Scott Newman’s brief work restriction statement unpersuasive because it did not provide a functional assessment or explain the treatment relationship. The court agreed that later evidence predicting additional reconstructive procedures did not relate to the period considered by the administrative law judge.

The court also found no reversible error in the administrative law judge’s treatment of obesity. Although obesity was not expressly discussed, the medical sources did not identify work-related limitations caused by obesity, and Diaz did not identify such limitations.

The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the residual functional capacity assessment. It found that the administrative law judge separately considered the effects of Diaz’s hand condition, lumbar degenerative disc disease, and asthma. The court also agreed that the administrative law judge reasonably found Dr. Fkiaras’s opinion unpersuasive because the examination findings—including generally full range of motion and the ability to zip, button, and tie—did not support the degree of limitation stated in the opinion. By contrast, the court found that the medical expert Dr. John Kwock’s opinion was supported by clinical findings and other evidence in the record.

Finally, the court found that the administrative law judge properly evaluated Diaz’s reported symptoms. The administrative law judge considered her daily activities, medical findings, treatment, and the effects of medication. The court concluded that the finding that Diaz’s reported limitations were not entirely consistent with the record was adequately supported.

Disposition

Judge James L. Cott denied Diaz’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, granted the Commissioner’s cross-motion, directed the Clerk to enter judgment for the Commissioner, and dismissed the case.