Sharone D. P. v. Saul

Background

Sharone D. P., represented by counsel, filed this federal case seeking review under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3). The parties submitted a joint stipulation instead of separate motions for judgment on the pleadings, which ask the court to decide the case based on the administrative record and the parties’ written arguments.

Administrative Decision

The Administrative Law Judge found that Sharone D. P. had severe impairments, including degenerative changes in the lumbar and cervical spine, osteoarthritis in both knees after arthroscopy, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, obesity, fibromyalgia, lupus, peripheral neuropathy, and major depressive disorder. The Administrative Law Judge found that these impairments did not meet or equal a listed impairment.

The Administrative Law Judge determined that, through December 31, 2018, Sharone D. P. had the residual functional capacity—the most she could still do despite her impairments—to perform sedentary work with restrictions. She could not climb; could occasionally balance, stoop, kneel, squat, crouch, and crawl; could occasionally reach overhead with both arms; could not have concentrated exposure to airborne irritants; could occasionally operate motor vehicles and heavy machinery; and was limited to low-stress work involving simple, routine, repetitive tasks, simple work-related decisions, and few workplace changes.

The Administrative Law Judge found that she could not perform her past work as a retail training manager or bookkeeper. But, relying on vocational-expert testimony, the Administrative Law Judge found that she could perform other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy, including document preparer, order clerk, and account clerk. The Administrative Law Judge therefore found that she was not disabled during the relevant period.

Court’s Analysis

Step-five job evidence. Sharone D. P. argued that the vocational expert’s testimony conflicted with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, a Department of Labor publication describing job requirements. The court recognized that an Administrative Law Judge must ask about apparent conflicts between vocational-expert testimony and that publication and must obtain a reasonable explanation for any conflict.

The court found that the Administrative Law Judge specifically asked about the apparent conflict between the limitation to occasional overhead reaching and the publication’s description of the three jobs as requiring frequent reaching. The vocational expert explained that the jobs could still be performed by someone limited to occasional overhead reaching and stated that the explanation was based on professional experience. The court held that this questioning and explanation satisfied the duty to investigate the conflict.

The court also rejected the argument that the jobs’ mental demands conflicted with the limitation to simple, low-stress work. The vocational expert testified that there was no conflict, and the court concluded that the jobs’ listed vocational-preparation and reasoning levels were consistent with simple, low-stress, unskilled work. The court sustained the Administrative Law Judge’s step-five analysis.

Carpal tunnel syndrome. Sharone D. P. argued that the Administrative Law Judge should have found carpal tunnel syndrome to be a severe impairment at step two. The court noted that the record contained a diagnosis and some treatment, but also noted that testing in July 2018 showed mild sensory motor peripheral neuropathy and no carpal tunnel syndrome. Clinical examinations generally showed full wrist and finger movement, no tenderness, swelling, or atrophy, intact hand and finger dexterity, and full grip strength. The court also considered medical opinions stating that she could work without restrictions or had no limitations in hand use. It concluded that substantial evidence supported the finding that carpal tunnel syndrome was not a severe impairment.

Cane use. Sharone D. P. argued that the Administrative Law Judge failed to account for her need to use a cane. One consultative examiner described the cane as medically necessary, and a treatment note stated that she continued to use a cane. The court found that the Administrative Law Judge expressly considered this evidence and reasonably found the consultative examiner’s opinion unpersuasive. The court also noted that other medical opinions described walking and standing abilities consistent with sedentary work and that treatment notes described a normal, stable gait. The court added that, even assuming cane use was necessary for weight-bearing and balance, Sharone D. P. identified no evidence that cane use would prevent her from performing the restricted sedentary work in the residual functional capacity.

Reported symptoms. Sharone D. P. challenged the Administrative Law Judge’s finding that her statements about the intensity, persistence, and effects of her symptoms were not entirely credible. The court explained that an Administrative Law Judge must consider subjective complaints but need not accept them without question. Here, the Administrative Law Judge relied on treatment notes, clinical assessments, medical opinions, and reported daily activities, including household chores, exercise, shopping, and personal care. The court concluded that the Administrative Law Judge gave specific, record-based reasons for discounting some of the reported limitations and did not err.

Disposition

The court granted the Commissioner judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the case. The Clerk was directed to enter final judgment and close the file.

Judge

The decision was signed by Gary R. Jones, United States Magistrate Judge.