Riaz v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Kanetz Tanisha Riaz sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying her application for Disability Insurance Benefits. Riaz alleged disability beginning January 1, 2018, based on post-traumatic stress disorder, chronic anxiety, depression, hypertension, and diabetes.

An administrative law judge held a hearing on October 7, 2019, and denied the application on November 14, 2019. The judge found that Riaz had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset date and had three severe impairments: diabetes mellitus, an affective disorder, and an anxiety disorder. The judge determined that none of those impairments met or equaled a listed impairment. The judge found that Riaz retained the capacity to perform medium work with certain limitations and could perform past work as a factory worker or work as a mold stripper or hand packager. The Appeals Council denied review on August 11, 2020.

The parties filed cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings, a procedure asking the court to decide the case based on the existing record and the parties’ written submissions. Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave recommended denying Riaz’s motion and granting the Commissioner’s motion. Riaz objected, arguing that the administrative law judge and the magistrate judge improperly evaluated medical opinions.

Medical-Opinion Issues

The court reviewed the administrative law judge’s treatment of opinions from Dr. Ramon Ravelo, Riaz’s treating physician; Dr. O. Fassler, a state-agency psychological consultant; and Dr. Gabriella Regalado, who conducted an independent psychiatric evaluation.

Under the applicable regulations, administrative law judges do not automatically give controlling or special weight to a treating physician’s opinion. Instead, they must explain how persuasive they find medical opinions, focusing especially on supportability—how well the opinion is explained and supported by the source’s evidence—and consistency with the other evidence in the record.

The court upheld the administrative law judge’s treatment of Dr. Ravelo’s opinion. Dr. Ravelo found marked or extreme mental limitations and concluded that Riaz was unable to work. The administrative law judge found that opinion unpersuasive because it conflicted with Dr. Ravelo’s own largely unremarkable treatment notes, other record evidence, and Riaz’s reported activities, including shopping, attending appointments, transporting her children to and from school, and handling household tasks. The court concluded that the administrative law judge adequately explained the opinion’s lack of support and consistency and relied on substantial evidence.

Dr. Fassler identified moderate mental limitations but did not personally examine Riaz and instead relied on a summary of the record prepared by a disability analyst. The magistrate judge concluded that Dr. Fassler’s opinion did not constitute substantial evidence supporting the residual-functional-capacity finding, but found that any reliance on it was harmless. The district court did not decide whether it was proper to rely on Dr. Fassler’s opinion. It agreed that any error was harmless because the administrative law judge also relied on Dr. Ravelo’s treatment notes, Dr. Regalado’s examination notes and opinion, Riaz’s daily activities, and other evidence supporting moderate mental limitations.

The court also upheld the administrative law judge’s treatment of Dr. Regalado’s opinion. The administrative law judge found the opinion persuasive as to moderate limitations in interacting with others because it was supported by findings of an anxious mood and affect and was consistent with the record as a whole. The judge found the opinion unpersuasive as to its mild and marked limitations because examinations showed some memory and concentration limitations but no significant behavioral abnormalities or inability to care for daily needs. The court concluded that this explanation satisfied the applicable regulations.

Ruling

The court conducted a de novo review of the portions of the magistrate judge’s recommendation challenged by Riaz and reviewed the unchallenged portions for clear error. It adopted the Report and Recommendation.

Judge John P. Cronan denied Riaz’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and granted the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court did not reach the question whether Dr. Fassler’s prior administrative medical finding constituted substantial evidence, because it concluded that any error involving that opinion was harmless. The Clerk was directed to close the pending motions and the case.