Adames v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Miguel A. Adames, Jr. sought review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying his application for supplemental security income. Adames alleged disability beginning June 13, 2013, based on a shoulder injury, depression, and back pain. The administrative law judge found severe impairments involving the lasting effects of a traumatic brain injury, degenerative changes in the lumbar spine, and dysfunction of the right shoulder. The administrative law judge determined that Adames had the residual functional capacity—the most he could still do despite his impairments—to perform the full range of sedentary work. Because he had no past relevant work but could perform jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy, the administrative law judge found that he was not disabled. The Appeals Council denied review.

The parties filed cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings. Adames argued that the administrative law judge should have found that he could not reach overhead, improperly rejected his hearing testimony about pain and functional limitations, and incorrectly found that his cane was not medically necessary. He also argued that a vocational expert should have been consulted about whether jobs were available for someone with his limitations.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that substantial evidence supported the decision not to include an overhead-reaching restriction in Adames’s residual functional capacity. It noted that Dr. Ravi did not specifically identify an overhead-reaching limitation and that other medical records showed greater shoulder movement, normal or steady gait, normal strength, and normal musculoskeletal findings. The court acknowledged that the administrative law judge used improper wording when stating that Dr. Ravi’s opinion was persuasive only to the extent it matched the already-determined residual functional capacity. But the court concluded that remand was not required because the administrative law judge otherwise adequately explained why the shoulder findings were inconsistent with the overall record.

The court also upheld the treatment of Adames’s hearing testimony. It found that the administrative law judge gave specific reasons supported by the record for discounting the claimed severity of Adames’s pain and functional limitations, including mild spinal imaging, examinations showing a normal or steady gait and full strength, normal or near-normal shoulder and musculoskeletal findings, and conservative treatment.

As to the cane, the court agreed that the administrative law judge’s statement that nothing established medical necessity was plainly erroneous because Dr. Ravi’s report stated that the cane was medically necessary. The court noted, however, that the report also left unclear whether Dr. Ravi was offering his own opinion or repeating information reported by Adames. In any event, the court concluded that the error did not require remand. The residual functional capacity for sedentary work was consistent with the medical records, including records showing cane use, and the applicable guidelines did not require consultation with a vocational expert merely because a claimant used a hand-held assistive device.

Disposition

The court denied Adames’s motion and granted the Commissioner’s motion. The action was dismissed with prejudice. The opinion therefore left the denial of Adames’s supplemental security income application in place.