Simpson Jr v. Commissioner Of Social Security

Background

Robert Simpson, Jr. sought review under Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act of the Commissioner’s denial of his application for Supplemental Security Income. An earlier denial was reversed by agreement and sent back for another hearing. After that hearing, the Administrative Law Judge again denied the application on October 3, 2022.

The Administrative Law Judge found that Simpson had severe physical and mental impairments, including back and knee conditions, obesity, bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, and borderline personality disorder. The judge found that these impairments did not meet or equal the listed impairments in the Social Security regulations. The judge determined that Simpson had the residual functional capacity—the most he could still do in a work setting—to perform light work with restrictions. Those restrictions included no climbing of ropes, ladders, or scaffolds; only occasional climbing of ramps or stairs, balancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, and crawling; limited exposure to workplace hazards; simple, routine, repetitive tasks; occasional interaction with coworkers, supervisors, and the public; and low-stress work involving limited decision-making, workplace changes, and judgment.

Because Simpson had no past relevant work, the Administrative Law Judge considered whether other jobs existed in significant numbers that he could perform. The judge identified price marker, electrical assembler, and mail sorter jobs and concluded that Simpson was not disabled under the Act.

Arguments and analysis

The parties filed cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). Simpson argued that the Administrative Law Judge improperly evaluated opinions from therapist Cynthia Flores, psychiatric nurse Hugh McKenzie, consultative psychologist Amanda Slowik, and treating physician Linden Schild. He also argued that the residual functional capacity should have included limits for time off-task and absenteeism and should not have allowed occasional interaction with coworkers, supervisors, and the public.

The court rejected the challenge to the medical-opinion analysis. It concluded that the Administrative Law Judge adequately explained why Dr. Slowik’s opinion was less persuasive than the opinions of other providers, even without using the exact words “supportability” and “consistency” in discussing her opinion. The court also found substantial evidence supporting the decision to treat the opinions of Ms. Flores and Mr. McKenzie as unpersuasive because they included little explanation and conflicted with other medical opinions, clinical observations, treatment records, and Simpson’s reported activities.

The court further held that the Administrative Law Judge did not commit harmful error by failing to discuss Dr. Schild’s 2015 statement that Simpson could not maintain gainful employment. The statement was from more than four years before the relevant application period, and it was a conclusion about whether Simpson could work rather than a detailed assessment of his specific functional limitations.

The court upheld the residual functional capacity finding. It concluded that the record supported the decision not to include additional limits for absences or time off-task. The court relied on evidence that Simpson often had intact or only mildly impaired attention, concentration, and memory; denied medication side effects; and performed activities such as handling money, attending meetings, and attending full-time college courses. The court also found that the Administrative Law Judge adequately accounted for Simpson’s social limitations by restricting him to occasional interaction with coworkers, supervisors, and the public.

Disposition

Judge Sarah L. Cave denied Simpson’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and granted the Commissioner’s cross-motion. The court directed the clerk to enter judgment in favor of the Commissioner, close the motions, and close the action. The opinion did not order a remand or an award of benefits.