Barahona v. Kijakazi

Background

Jose Noel Barahona sought review under Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act of the denial of his application for Supplemental Security Income. He alleged that hearing and back impairments, HIV, anxiety, and vertigo prevented him from working. He appeared without a lawyer at the second administrative hearing and used a Spanish interpreter; he was represented by counsel in the federal court case.

The administrative law judge found that Barahona had severe impairments involving bilateral hearing loss, anxiety, HIV, and vertigo. The judge determined that he could perform light work with restrictions on noise, ladders and scaffolds, bodies of water, dangerous machinery, workplace stress, decision-making, workplace changes, and interactions with coworkers and the public. The judge found that Barahona had no past relevant work but could perform jobs such as small-products assembler, office cleaner, and labeler. The administrative law judge therefore found that he was not disabled, and the Social Security Appeals Council declined review.

Issues and arguments

Barahona made three arguments. First, he argued that the administrative law judge should have obtained a formal medical opinion from a treating or examining physician before assessing his work capacity. Second, he argued that the residual functional capacity—the most work a person can still perform despite limitations—did not account for his need for unscheduled breaks and the effects of vertigo. Third, he argued that the administrative law judge relied too heavily on medical findings and failed to properly evaluate his statements about the severity of his symptoms.

The Commissioner argued that the administrative record was adequate, that the residual functional capacity was supported by substantial evidence, and that the administrative law judge properly evaluated Barahona’s statements.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the administrative law judge adequately developed the record. Although the record did not contain a formal medical opinion from Barahona’s treating physician, it contained extensive treatment notes, testing, and diagnoses from 2017 through 2020. Those records showed, among other things, stable HIV treatment, an undetectable viral load, generally high CD4 counts, controlled anxiety, improvement in vertigo with medication, and no reported back or joint symptoms during several 2020 visits. The court also noted that Barahona did not identify additional records that existed but had not been obtained. The court concluded that the administrative law judge was not required to obtain a consultative examination or further information from treating providers.

The court also found substantial evidence supporting the residual functional capacity. The administrative law judge considered Barahona’s testimony that medication reduced his anxiety and dizziness, as well as his ability to hear with hearing aids, lift up to 25 pounds, take public transportation, shop, and do laundry. The hearing-related restrictions addressed his improved hearing and full speech-discrimination score. Restrictions against ladders, scaffolds, bodies of water, and dangerous machinery addressed the vertigo. The court found that the evidence concerning Barahona’s stable HIV, undetectable viral load, and lack of physical complications supported the light-work limitation. The restrictions on judgment, stress, workplace changes, and interactions addressed his anxiety.

Finally, the court held that the administrative law judge properly evaluated Barahona’s statements about his symptoms. The administrative law judge considered the required factors, including daily activities, treatment, medication effectiveness, and the medical evidence. The court found substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that Barahona’s statements were not entirely consistent with the record, including treatment records showing symptom control, his reported daily activities, and his decisions not to pursue additional ear, orthopedic, or psychiatric treatment.

Disposition

Judge Sarah L. Cave denied Barahona’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and granted the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court directed the Clerk of Court to close the two motions and the case.