Administrative – ALJ’s denial of disability insurance benefits claim is affirmed

Where the administrative law judge denied an applicant’s claim for disability insurance limits, reasoning that he could still perform a range of light work, and the decision was sufficiently explained and supported by the record, it was affirmed.

Background

Stacey S. filed suit in this court seeking to overturn the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying his claim for disability insurance benefits. After a hearing, an administrative law judge, or ALJ, concluded that, despite his limitations, Stacey could still perform a range of light work.

Obesity

Stacey argues that the ALJ “failed to conduct any analysis of the impact of [his] obesity upon his other impairments” and did “not provide any actual explanation as to how he considered [Stacey’s] obesity in arriving at his RFC findings.” The court disagrees.

The ALJ found that Stacey’s obesity was a severe impairment, but concluded that the functional limitations caused by obesity—considered alone and in combination with Stacey’s other medically determinable impairments—“do not medically equal any potential[ly] relevant listing.” In his residual functional capacity, or RFC, finding, moreover, the ALJ noted that he considered the “potential limiting effects of obesity . . . in evaluating [Stacey’s] residual functional capacity.”

The ALJ’s discussion here provides more details as to why he found that Stacey’s obesity does not require further RFC limitations than those he listed—namely, that Stacey has been able to lose weight through diet and exercise and that his body mass index is no longer in the obese range. The ALJ also referenced Stacey’s weight loss and regular exercise while analyzing how his other physical impairments, such as his diabetes mellitus and stroke-related symptoms, affect his RFC.

Workday

Stacey next argues that the ALJ “failed to properly consider whether [his] pain is so continuous and/or severe that it prevents [him] from working an eight hour workday.” In particular, he contends that the ALJ cherry-picked medical evidence showing that his impairments improved over the course of 2022 but “ignored the findings in 2023 of decreased strength in the upper and lower extremities in arriving at his conclusions and RFC findings.” Additionally, Stacey argues that the ALJ “failed to account for the fact that [his] impairments result in waxing and waning of his symptoms which also impacts his residual functional capacity.” Again, the court disagrees.

The ALJ provided a detailed summary and chronology of Stacey’s symptoms related to his diabetes mellitus and stroke-
related residual effects. He also detailed multiple positive Romberg tests, an MRI showing abnormal findings consistent with a pontine infarct and physical examinations indicating atrophy in his hand and finger muscles.

The ALJ then extensively cited to medical evidence indicating that Stacey’s symptoms improved throughout 2022 and 2023, finding that Stacey’s allegations as to the intensity and persistence of his symptoms “are not entirely consistent with other evidence in the record.” But the ALJ did not ignore the general waxing and waning of Stacey’s symptoms. Instead his lengthy narrative regarding the trends in Stacey’s symptoms, his course of treatment and his increasing ability to perform daily tasks further support his conclusion that Stacey can sustain work activities over the course of an eight-hour workday.

Mental impairments

Stacey argues that the ALJ failed to “explain how his RFC findings address or accommodate [Stacey’s] moderate limitations in concentrating, persisting, or maintaining pace” and “said nothing about [Stacey’s] ability to perform the RFC findings for a full workday[.]” The court disagrees.

The ALJ’s description permits the court “to understand that, to allow for [Stacey’s] moderate limitations in maintaining concentration, persistence, and pace, [Stacey] shall not be required to perform tasks within a certain time allotment, like what would be present in an assembly-line setting.” Further, the ALJ’s RFC finding as it pertains to Stacey’s mental limitations is supported by substantial evidence because it was preceded by a “chronological narrative of
[Stacey’s] testimony, alleged symptoms, medical record, and opinion evidence.”

Allegations

Stacey contends that, although the ALJ looked at his daily activities, he “failed to consider the extent to which [Stacey] actually performed the activities and ignored other significant testimony from
[Stacey].” As with Stacey’s other arguments, the court disagrees.

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment denied. Commissioner’s decision affirmed.

Stacey S v. Commissioner of Social Security, Case No. 7:24-cv-00834, Feb. 17, 2026. WDVA at Roanoke (Cullen). VLW 026-3-076. 31 pp.

Full-Text Opinion

VLW 026-3-076
Virginia Lawyers Weekly