Colombia B.N. v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Colombia B.N. applied for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits in December 2019, alleging disability beginning August 1, 2018. The Commissioner denied the application initially and on reconsideration. After a hearing, Administrative Law Judge Mark Solomon denied benefits on March 19, 2021. The Appeals Council denied review, making the Administrative Law Judge’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision.

The Administrative Law Judge found that Colombia B.N. had severe sleep apnea and migraine headaches, but did not have an impairment meeting or equaling a listed impairment. He found that she retained the residual functional capacity—the ability to work despite her impairments—to perform work at all exertional levels, subject to avoiding unprotected heights and hazardous machinery. He also found that she could perform her past relevant work as a sales clerk and cashier/laborer.

Arguments and Analysis

Colombia B.N. sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3). She argued that the Administrative Law Judge failed to develop the record because it lacked a functional assessment from a treating provider. She also argued that the Administrative Law Judge improperly discounted her reports about pain and limitations. A footnote states that she additionally challenged the hypothetical questions presented to the vocational expert, but the court treated that argument as repeating her other challenges.

The court explained that a reviewing court must uphold the Commissioner’s factual findings when they are supported by substantial evidence, meaning relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as sufficient. The court concluded that the record contained treatment records from the relevant period, a consultative examination, and assessments from two state-agency reviewing physicians. Although there was no functional assessment from a treating provider, the court found that the existing record was sufficient for the Administrative Law Judge to assess Colombia B.N.’s work capacity. The court also found that the Administrative Law Judge reasonably reconciled the medical opinions and did not need to obtain another assessment.

Regarding Colombia B.N.’s reported symptoms, the court found that the Administrative Law Judge properly considered her testimony and reasonably concluded that the reported intensity, persistence, and limiting effects were not entirely supported by the record. The court cited treatment notes, sleep-study results, improvement with migraine medication and use of a continuous positive airway pressure machine, and generally unremarkable physical examinations. It concluded that the Administrative Law Judge’s evaluation was supported by substantial evidence and consistent with applicable law.

Disposition

Judge Gary R. Jones denied Colombia B.N.’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, granted the Commissioner’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, and dismissed the case. The opinion does not add a with-prejudice or without-prejudice qualifier to the dismissal.