Rosario v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Carmen Rosario 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. Rosario alleged that she became disabled on July 11, 2018, because of bipolar disorder, arthritis, fibromyalgia, back pain, and spondylosis.

Administrative law judge Angela Banks held a hearing at which Rosario testified and a vocational expert testified. On July 28, 2020, the administrative law judge found that Rosario was not disabled. The administrative law judge found severe impairments involving degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, bipolar disorder, and anxiety disorder, but concluded that Rosario’s impairments did not meet or equal a listed impairment. The administrative law judge found that Rosario could perform light work with physical and mental restrictions, could not perform her past relevant work, but could perform jobs such as photocopy machine operator, routing clerk, and housekeeper cleaner.

Rosario’s Arguments

Rosario moved for judgment on the pleadings, asking the court to reverse the Commissioner’s decision and award benefits or remand the case for further administrative proceedings. She argued that the administrative law judge cherry-picked the evidence, improperly evaluated medical opinions, failed to follow the requirements for assessing residual functional capacity, and improperly relied on the vocational expert’s testimony.

In particular, Rosario challenged the treatment of consultative examiner David Schaich’s opinion that she had marked limitations in interacting with supervisors, coworkers, and the public and in regulating emotions, controlling behavior, and maintaining well-being. She also argued that the administrative law judge improperly discounted her reports of physical pain and limitations and relied too heavily on conservative treatment and medical examinations.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that its review was limited to whether the Commissioner applied the correct legal standards and whether the decision was supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence means relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The court emphasized that it was not deciding independently whether Rosario was disabled.

The court concluded that the administrative law judge properly evaluated Schaich’s opinion under the applicable regulations. The administrative law judge reasonably found that Schaich’s marked-limitations findings were not persuasive because they were inconsistent with longitudinal treatment records and generally normal mental-status examinations. Those records commonly described Rosario as oriented, attentive, cooperative, and having intact memory and concentration. The court also found that the administrative law judge appropriately considered the consistency and supportability of the opinion and was not required to accept it merely because another medical opinion did not contradict it.

The court also found substantial evidence supporting the administrative law judge’s assessment of Rosario’s physical limitations. Physical examinations generally showed full strength, normal sensation, normal gait, and mostly normal range of motion, although some examinations recorded pain, tenderness, or reduced movement. Imaging showed degenerative changes but generally mild findings. The court held that the administrative law judge could consider Rosario’s conservative treatment and decisions not to pursue certain treatments when evaluating the severity of her symptoms.

The court rejected Rosario’s challenge to the residual functional capacity assessment under Social Security Ruling 96-8p. Because the court had already found that the assessment was legally correct and supported by substantial evidence, it concluded that the administrative law judge had adequately considered the relevant evidence.

Finally, the court found that the administrative law judge properly relied on the vocational expert’s testimony. The hypothetical presented to the expert was based on a residual functional capacity supported by substantial evidence. The court also stated that any failure to impose greater limits on interactions with supervisors and coworkers would have been harmless because the identified unskilled jobs did not require more than occasional interaction with them. The record did not support additional limitations for being off task or absent from work.

Disposition

Judge Andrew E. Krause denied Rosario’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, granted the Commissioner’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings, and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in favor of the Commissioner. The court therefore left the Commissioner’s denial of disability insurance benefits in place.