Benitez v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Kai Shaun Benitez sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying his claim for Social Security Disability benefits. Benitez alleged disability beginning September 16, 2016, based primarily on bipolar disorder, anxiety, depression, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. The administrative law judge found that these were severe impairments but did not meet or equal a listed impairment.

The administrative law judge found that Benitez could perform work at all exertional levels subject to nonphysical restrictions. Those restrictions limited him to simple and repetitive tasks, low-stress work with occasional decision-making and judgment, goal-oriented work without production-rate pacing, and occasional contact with coworkers, supervisors, and the public. Based on vocational-expert testimony, the administrative law judge found that Benitez could perform some past work, including warehouse work and kennel-attendant work, as well as other jobs such as dishwasher and shelving clerk.

The administrative law judge considered treatment records, medical opinions, Benitez’s testimony, and his activities. The record included reports of concentration, memory, mood, anxiety, fatigue, and anger problems, but also records showing stable or improved mood, normal or largely normal mental-status findings, work activity, enrollment in classes, travel, and improvement with medication.

Issues Presented

Benitez argued that the administrative law judge failed to fully develop the administrative record by not obtaining a referenced letter from Dr. Jessica Clemons and by not obtaining a newer consultative examination. He also argued that the administrative law judge improperly evaluated the opinions of examining psychologist David Schaich, Psy.D., and non-examining state-agency psychologist K. Lieber-Diaz, Psy.D., resulting in an unsupported residual-functional-capacity determination. Finally, he argued that the administrative law judge improperly evaluated his statements about the intensity and effects of his symptoms.

Court’s Analysis

Development of the record. The court held that the administrative law judge had enough evidence to decide the claim. Benitez was represented by counsel, was given additional time to submit records, and did not provide the referenced support letter to the court. The court noted that the existing treatment records included several years of medical information and more recent records showing stable mood, decreased anxiety, unremarkable mental-status findings, or a euthymic mood. The court found no demonstrated worsening that would have required obtaining additional evidence or a newer medical opinion.

Medical opinions and residual functional capacity. The court concluded that the administrative law judge properly considered the supportability and consistency of the medical opinions. The administrative law judge found parts of Dr. Schaich’s opinion unpersuasive because they were inconsistent with evidence of memory and concentration problems, while incorporating work restrictions addressing interaction, stress, and pace. The administrative law judge found Dr. Lieber-Diaz’s assessment of moderate limitations persuasive in part, but found the assessment of mild limitations in understanding and remembering information unpersuasive because it conflicted with reported memory deficits and mood instability.

The court rejected Benitez’s argument that moderate limitations in concentration, pace, or attendance necessarily required a finding of disability. It found that the residual functional capacity addressed the supported limitations through restrictions to simple and repetitive tasks, goal-oriented work, no production-rate pace, low-stress work, and occasional contact with others. The court also noted that no medical opinion stated that Benitez would be off task for more than 20 percent of the workday or would miss more than one day of work per month. The court found no improper selective use of evidence and no reversible error in the residual-functional-capacity determination.

Subjective statements. The court upheld the administrative law judge’s evaluation of Benitez’s statements about his symptoms. It found substantial evidence in treatment notes documenting improvement in concentration, anger, fatigue, and mood with medication, as well as stable mood and normal or largely normal mental-status examinations at various times. The court also relied on evidence that Benitez worked, attended classes, traveled domestically and internationally, and engaged in daily activities. The court concluded that the administrative law judge reasonably determined that Benitez’s statements about the severity and effects of his symptoms were not fully consistent with the medical and other evidence.

Disposition

Judge Katharine H. Parker denied Benitez’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and affirmed the Commissioner’s final decision that Benitez was not disabled through the date of the administrative law judge’s decision.