Dritan Q. v. Kijakazi

Background

Dritan Q. applied for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits in October 2019, alleging that he became unable to work on September 20, 2019. The Social Security Administration denied the application initially and again on reconsideration. After two hearings at which Dritan Q. appeared with an attorney and testified, Administrative Law Judge John Carlton denied the application on March 29, 2022. The Appeals Council denied review on December 13, 2022, making the administrative judge’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision.

The administrative judge found severe impairments involving Dritan Q.’s lumbar spine, left shoulder, left knee, depression, anxiety, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. But the judge found that these impairments did not meet or equal a listed impairment. The judge determined that Dritan Q. retained the residual functional capacity—the most he could still do in a work setting—to perform sedentary work with restrictions, including the ability to switch between sitting and standing, limits on climbing and other activities, restrictions on use of his nondominant upper extremity, no use of left-leg foot pedals, and limits on work interactions. The judge found that he could not return to his past work as a formal waiter but could perform other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Arguments and Analysis

Dritan Q. raised four challenges. He argued that the administrative judge improperly failed to identify cervical spine problems as severe impairments at the second step of the disability analysis; incorrectly decided that his impairments did not meet the requirements of Listing 12.04 for depressive, bipolar, and related disorders; adopted a residual functional capacity unsupported by substantial evidence; and relied on defective hypothetical questions when asking a vocational expert about available jobs.

The court rejected the step-two argument. It said that even if failing to list the cervical spine problems as severe impairments had been an error, the error was harmless because the administrative judge found other severe impairments and continued through the remaining steps. The decision also showed that the judge considered evidence concerning neck pain, spinal tenderness, and painful movement, and Dritan Q. did not identify additional material work restrictions that should have been included.

The court also upheld the Listings analysis. The administrative judge found no more than mild or moderate limitations in the four relevant areas of mental functioning, rather than the extreme or marked limitations required by Listing 12.04. The court found substantial evidence supporting that conclusion, including Dritan Q.’s daily activities, treatment records describing him as pleasant and cooperative with good insight and impulse control, and assessments by state-agency physicians finding moderate limitations. The court concluded that the administrative judge adequately accounted for the mental impairments by limiting Dritan Q. to simple, routine work with restricted interactions.

The court found the residual functional capacity supported by substantial evidence. It cited medical records showing good lower-extremity strength and generally intact sensation, only mild reductions in left-arm and left-leg strength, some symptom relief from treatment, Dritan Q.’s daily activities, and medical opinions addressing his physical limitations. The court explained that the administrative judge was responsible for resolving conflicts in the evidence and was not required to adopt any one medical opinion exactly. Because the evidence supported more than one reasonable interpretation, the court would not substitute a different assessment.

Finally, the court rejected the step-five challenge because it depended on the rejected objections to the residual functional capacity. A vocational expert testified that a person with the restrictions identified by the administrative judge could perform work as a table worker, semiconductor bonder, and surveillance system monitor, and that those jobs existed in significant numbers in the national economy.

Ruling

Judge Gary R. Jones denied Dritan Q.’s Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed the case. The court directed the clerk to enter final judgment in favor of the Commissioner and close the file.