Administrative: Social Security Administration prevails in benefits dispute

Where substantial evidence supported the administrative law judge’s decision denying a woman’s application for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income, it was affirmed.

Background

Plaintiff’s complaint appeals a decision denying her application for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits, or DIB, and Supplemental Security Income, or SSI. The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation, or R&R, that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be denied, thereby upholding the decision of the administrative law judge, or ALJ. Plaintiff filed objections to the R&R.

Off-task

Plaintiff first objects to the magistrate judge’s finding that the ALJ adequately accounted for plaintiff’s moderate limitations in her concentration, persistence and pace, including off-task limitations. Specifically, plaintiff claims the ALJ’s residual functional capacity, or RFC, determination did not account for her diminished capacity to stay on task.

However the ALJ considered plaintiff’s diminished capacity to stay on task and explained why that did not merit a limitation in her RFC. The ALJ explained that this assessment of a “marked limitation” was only “partially persuasive” because it was “not consistent with the longitudinal record.” Likewise, the ALJ found plaintiff’s statements that “her impairments affect her ability to follow instructions; understand; concentrate; and her memory,” were “not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record.” Further, multiple examinations indicated that plaintiff’s memory was consistently intact, with only moderate limitations in this area.

Even the May 2021 assessment noted only moderate limitations in plaintiff’s ability to “maintain attention and concentration for extended periods of time.” Considering this entire record and giving plaintiff the benefit of the doubt, the ALJ reasonably found “no more than a moderate limitation in concentrating, persisting, or maintaining pace.”

Plaintiff’s participation in mental health counseling and her inconsistent medication dosages do not change the fact that substantial evidence supports both the ALJ’s conclusions about her ability to stay on task and the RFC’s assessment of that ability. For these reasons, based on the court’s de novo review of the record, the court agrees with the magistrate judge’s conclusion that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision.

Function-by-function

Plaintiff also argues the ALJ failed to perform a “function-by-function” analysis within the RFC assessment. Contrary to plaintiff’s assertion, the ALJ properly undertook a function-by-function analysis by assessing plaintiff’s physical and mental abilities and tying those assessments to the RFC.

The analysis of physical abilities accounted for plaintiff’s back pain, left ankle, asthma and lymphedema. The ALJ examined these ailments and their effects on plaintiff’s physical abilities. As for lymphedema, the ALJ noted that “[w]hile there were multiple examinations where the claimant had swelling on one or both of her legs, these findings were not consistent in that there were many examinations where she had no swelling.”

Finally, the ALJ acknowledged plaintiff’s testimony that she uses a compression machine for four hours a day, two-to-five days a week to reduce swelling. But, the ALJ observed, the machine only appears once in plaintiff’s medical records, a January 2022 nurse practitioner’s note, and that entry does not establish how frequently plaintiff used the machine. After considering all this evidence, the ALJ concluded that the RFC would appropriately limit plaintiff to “light work.”

The function-by-function analysis also properly considered plaintiff’s mental abilities, including “her documented symptoms of difficulty concentrating and difficulty following directions.” In sum, the ALJ properly “assess[ed] [plaintiff’s] capacity to perform relevant functions.” Notably, this analysis “include[d] a narrative discussion describing how the evidence supports each conclusion, citing specific medical facts (e.g., laboratory findings) and nonmedical evidence (e.g., daily activities, observations).” Therefore, the court agrees, after de novo review, with the R&R’s conclusion that “the ALJ performed the required function-by-function analysis and her RFC was supported by substantial evidence.”

Report & Recommendation adopted. Plaintiff’s objections overruled. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment denied.

Starr A v. O’Malley, Case No. 2:23-cv-460, Aug. 6, 2024. EDVA at Norfolk (Smith). VLW 024-3-395. 14 pp.