David P. v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Background

Michael David P. applied for Disability Insurance Benefits in February 2021, alleging that he became disabled on October 20, 2020. The Commissioner denied the application initially and on reconsideration. After a hearing at which Michael David P. testified with an attorney and a vocational expert testified, Administrative Law Judge Dennis Katz denied the application on March 3, 2022. The Appeals Council denied review on November 25, 2022, making the Administrative Law Judge’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision.

The Administrative Law Judge found that Michael David P. had severe degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine, degenerative joint disease of the left shoulder with rotator cuff syndrome, and an aortic dissection after repair. The judge found that these impairments did not meet or equal a listed impairment. The judge determined that Michael David P. could perform light work with frequent reaching, handling, and fingering with both hands, and could perform his past relevant work as a banquet chef.

Michael David P. filed this federal action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) and moved for judgment on the pleadings, which is a request for the court to decide the case based on the administrative record and the parties’ written submissions.

Issues and analysis

Michael David P. raised three principal challenges. First, he argued that the Administrative Law Judge improperly evaluated his depressive disorder at the second step of the disability process. The court upheld the finding that the disorder was not severe. The Administrative Law Judge rated Michael David P.’s limitations as mild or nonexistent in the four required mental-function areas. The court relied on evidence that the psychiatric examiner found that the symptoms did not appear significant enough to interfere with daily functioning, that Michael David P. had not alleged a mental impairment in his benefits application, that he had no history of mental-health treatment, and that other examinations and state-agency reviews showed no more than minimal functional impact.

Second, Michael David P. argued that the Administrative Law Judge improperly evaluated the medical opinions when determining his residual functional capacity, meaning his remaining ability to work despite his impairments. Treating chiropractor Dr. Ronald Lambert opined that Michael David P. had very restrictive physical limitations, including an inability to sit, stand, or walk for more than two hours in an eight-hour workday and severe lifting, climbing, and postural restrictions. The Administrative Law Judge found that opinion unpersuasive. The court upheld that decision because Dr. Lambert used a check-off form without substantial supporting clinical findings, other medical evidence showed normal gait, full strength, and no muscle atrophy, and state-agency consultants found that Michael David P. could perform light work with some reaching restrictions. The court also noted that a chiropractor is not an acceptable medical source under the applicable regulations, although evidence from chiropractors may still be considered.

Third, Michael David P. challenged the step-four finding that he could perform his past relevant work as a banquet chef. The court upheld that finding because the vocational expert testified that a person with the residual functional capacity identified by the Administrative Law Judge could perform that work, which was generally supervisory and could involve some cooking.

Standard of review and ruling

The court reviewed whether substantial evidence supported the Commissioner’s decision and whether the correct legal standards were applied. Substantial evidence means relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The court did not decide disability eligibility anew or replace the agency’s factual findings when more than one reasonable interpretation of the record was possible.

Judge Gary R. Jones concluded that the Administrative Law Judge’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and consistent with applicable law. The court denied Michael David P.’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, granted the Commissioner’s Judgment on the Pleadings, and dismissed the case. The Clerk was directed to enter final judgment and close the file.