Michael K. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia reviews the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of Michael K.’s application for disability insurance benefits. The court holds that the Administrative Law Judge properly evaluated the claimant’s subjective complaints, medical opinion evidence, residual functional capacity, and step-five vocational evidence, and that substantial evidence supports the denial of benefits. The court denies the claimant’s motion for summary judgment, grants the Commissioner’s motion, and affirms the Commissioner’s final decision.

Holdings

1. The ALJ applied the required two-step process for evaluating subjective symptoms and did not commit reversible error by failing to discuss fatigue expressly because Plaintiff did not identify fatigue as an ongoing work-limiting symptom in his hearing testimony or Function Reports, the record contained few references to fatigue, and the medical opinion relied upon by the ALJ considered the reported fatigue.
2. The ALJ properly found the treating neurologist's highly restrictive opinion not fully persuasive because it was unsupported by the provider's referenced clinical findings and inconsistent with the record, including generally mild right-sided strength restrictions and Plaintiff's activities of daily living.
3. When a claimant's exertional residual functional capacity falls between the regulatory sedentary and light-work ranges and the Medical-Vocational Guidelines would point toward different outcomes, the ALJ may consult a vocational expert under Social Security Ruling 83-12 rather than applying a Grid rule mechanically.
4. The ALJ did not commit reversible error by relying on the vocational expert's testimony concerning job numbers or by overruling Plaintiff's post-hearing objection; Plaintiff did not challenge the vocational evidence during the hearing, the ALJ addressed the objection, and the two unchallenged occupations alone supplied a significant number of jobs.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the ALJ properly evaluated Plaintiff's subjective complaints, including fatigue, in determining his residual functional capacity.
2. Whether the ALJ properly evaluated the persuasiveness of the treating neurologist's medical opinion under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c.
3. Whether the ALJ properly applied the Medical-Vocational Guidelines and Social Security Ruling 83-12 when Plaintiff's exertional capacity fell between the sedentary and light-work ranges.
4. Whether the ALJ properly relied on vocational-expert testimony regarding the number of jobs available in the national economy and adequately addressed Plaintiff's post-hearing objection.

Disposition

affirmed