Nunez v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Giovanni R. Nunez sought court review of the Social Security Administration’s final decision denying his application for Supplemental Security Income benefits. Although he applied for both Supplemental Security Income and Disability Insurance benefits, the opinion states that he challenged only the denial of Supplemental Security Income. Nunez alleged disability based on agoraphobia, panic disorder, vertigo, anxiety disorder, and a learning disability.

After a hearing, Administrative Law Judge Angela Banks found that Nunez was not disabled from August 22, 2018, through the date of her decision. The administrative law judge found severe impairments of asthma, agoraphobia with panic disorder, and generalized anxiety behavior. She determined that Nunez did not meet a listed impairment and had the residual functional capacity—the most he could still do despite his impairments—to perform work at all exertional levels with restrictions. Those restrictions included no driving as an occupational requirement, no work at unprotected heights or around moving mechanical parts, work involving instructions learnable within 30 days, a goal-oriented setting rather than a constant required pace, and only occasional interaction with the public. The administrative law judge found that Nunez could not return to his past work as a security guard but could perform other jobs, including final assembler, packager, and product assembler.

Nunez moved for judgment on the pleadings, asking the court to reverse the decision or send the matter back for further proceedings. The Commissioner cross-moved for judgment on the pleadings.

Nunez’s Arguments

Nunez argued that the administrative law judge improperly evaluated the medical opinions of Patrick Schulte, M.D., Glenn Bromley, Ph.D., and James K. Ellis, Ph.D.; failed to support the residual-functional-capacity finding with adequate evidence; and did not sufficiently explain why his reports about the severity and effects of his symptoms were discounted.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied the deferential substantial-evidence standard. Under that standard, the court asks whether the administrative record contains relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as sufficient to support the agency’s conclusions and whether the agency applied the correct legal standard. The court may not replace the Commissioner’s judgment merely because the record could also support a different result.

The court held that the administrative law judge properly evaluated the medical opinions under the regulations applicable to applications filed on or after March 27, 2017. Those regulations require consideration of factors including supportability and consistency, and require the administrative law judge to explain how those two most important factors were considered.

As to Dr. Schulte, the court agreed that his opinions that Nunez could not work and had limited ability to use public transportation were not persuasive. The court relied on treatment notes showing that Nunez’s anxiety and panic attacks improved after he resumed Lexapro and continued therapy and other treatment. The notes described Nunez as calmer, more able to manage his anxiety, able to use the subway more often, and able to visit family, volunteer, exercise, and practice yoga.

The court also upheld the treatment of Dr. Bromley’s opinion. Dr. Bromley found some marked limitations, but his examination notes described appropriate grooming, motor activity, and speech; only mildly impaired attention, concentration, and memory; fair insight; and a fair prognosis. Nunez also reported that medication helped him and that he could perform personal care, basic cooking, cleaning, shopping, manage money, and socialize with friends and family.

The court upheld the treatment of Dr. Ellis’s opinion as well. Dr. Ellis found marked limitations in concentration, pace, and interaction with others and predicted that Nunez would miss more than three workdays per month. But the court noted that Dr. Ellis’s own evaluation described Nunez as fully oriented, logical, and linear, without impaired concentration or attention, and with good impulse control and fair insight and judgment. The court concluded that the administrative law judge adequately explained why the opinions were not consistent with or supported by the broader record.

The court further held that substantial evidence supported the residual-functional-capacity finding. The evidence included improvement with medication and treatment, stable or cooperative mental-status examinations, participation in group therapy, use of public transportation, personal-care activities, shopping, attending church, walking in a park, visiting family, and volunteering. The court concluded that the restrictions imposed by the administrative law judge accounted for Nunez’s mental-health symptoms.

Finally, the court held that the administrative law judge sufficiently evaluated Nunez’s statements about frequent panic attacks, difficulty using public transportation, interacting with others, socializing, personal care, remembering, and concentrating. The administrative law judge considered those statements but found that their claimed intensity and limiting effects were not entirely consistent with the medical and other evidence, particularly the documented improvement with medication and treatment.

Disposition

Judge Valerie Figueredo denied Nunez’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and granted the Commissioner’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court affirmed the administrative law judge’s decision denying Nunez Supplemental Security Income benefits.