Napolitano v. Kijakazi

Background

Erica Napolitano sought judicial review of the Social Security Administration’s final decision denying her applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. She alleged disability beginning August 1, 2018, based in part on symptoms following surgery to remove a benign brain tumor. The administrative law judge found that she had severe impairments, including a resected grade I meningioma, migraine headaches, neuropathy, depression, and anxiety, but concluded that she was not disabled.

The administrative law judge determined that Napolitano could perform sedentary work with restrictions. Those restrictions included occasional climbing of ramps and stairs; no climbing of ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; occasional postural activities; avoiding unprotected heights, hazardous machinery, and bright lights; frequent handling and fingering with both hands; frequent use of foot controls; no more than moderate noise; and simple, routine, repetitive work tasks. Although he found that she could not perform her past work as an admissions director, he concluded, based on testimony from a vocational expert, that she could perform work as a document preparer, customer service clerk, or information clerk.

The Parties’ Arguments

Napolitano argued that the administrative law judge should have limited her to only occasional handling and fingering, given greater weight to treating physician Dr. Gary Rogg’s opinion, found that her impairments met or equaled Listing 11.05, and rejected the vocational expert’s testimony because it allegedly conflicted with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles.

The Commissioner argued that substantial evidence supported the administrative law judge’s findings. The Commissioner relied on medical examinations showing generally normal gait, strength, sensation, coordination, and mental-status findings; Napolitano’s reported daily activities; her limited mental-health treatment; and the administrative law judge’s evaluation of the medical opinions under the regulations applicable to claims filed after March 27, 2017.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied the substantial-evidence standard, which asks whether the record contains relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate to support the agency’s decision. The court explained that it could not replace the Commissioner’s judgment with its own when the administrative law judge applied the correct legal standards and reached a decision supported by substantial evidence.

The court upheld the evaluation of Dr. Rogg’s opinion. The administrative law judge found the opinion persuasive in part and unpersuasive in part. The court agreed that the physical restrictions were not adequately supported by treatment records, objective findings, or treatment history, and were inconsistent with Napolitano’s reported ability to drive, shop, cook, clean, and reach overhead. The administrative law judge found the opinion about her mental abilities more persuasive because it was supported by generally normal mental-status findings, her lack of mental-health treatment, and her daily activities.

The court also upheld the administrative law judge’s residual functional capacity finding. It concluded that the finding allowing frequent handling and fingering was supported by evidence of intact hand and finger dexterity, full grip strength, no sensory deficit, and generally normal examinations. The court also accepted the administrative law judge’s consideration of Napolitano’s failure to take Gabapentin as recommended when assessing the severity of her reported limitations.

The court rejected Napolitano’s challenge to Listing 11.05. It concluded that the record did not show the extreme motor-function limitations or the combination of marked physical and mental limitations required by that listing. The court found that the administrative law judge reasonably discounted the marked limitations identified by one consulting psychologist because they were inconsistent with the broader medical record, Napolitano’s activities, and her lack of mental-health treatment.

Finally, the court upheld reliance on the vocational expert’s testimony. It found no apparent conflict between the testimony that Napolitano could perform simple, routine, repetitive work and the job descriptions’ reasoning levels. The court also noted that the vocational expert had explained that the Dictionary of Occupational Titles did not address certain issues, such as being off task or performing less than sedentary work, but that her testimony on those matters was based on her professional experience.

Disposition

Judge James L. Cott denied Napolitano’s motion for summary judgment and granted the Commissioner’s cross-motion. The court directed the Clerk to mark Napolitano’s motion as denied, mark the Commissioner’s motion as granted, and enter judgment for the Commissioner.