Terry Sullivan v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security

Summary

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania reviews Terry Sullivan’s appeal from the denial of Social Security disability benefits. The court holds that the Administrative Law Judge inadequately explained which portions of a consulting nurse practitioner’s opinion were persuasive, but concludes that the error was harmless because vocational-expert testimony established that the disputed sitting, standing, and walking limitations would not affect Sullivan’s ability to perform available work. The court therefore affirms the Commissioner’s decision.

Holdings

1. Under the governing medical-opinion regulations, an ALJ must explain the supportability and consistency of each medical opinion and, when finding an opinion only partially persuasive, identify which portions are persuasive and which lack persuasive power, with an explanation grounded in the evidence. The ALJ's conclusory treatment of Schultz's opinion did not satisfy that articulation requirement.
2. The ALJ's articulation error was harmless and did not require remand because uncontested vocational-expert testimony established that the disputed limitations on Sullivan's ability to sit and stand would not affect his ability to perform the work identified by the expert.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the ALJ adequately articulated the reasons for finding CRNP Schultz's medical opinion only partially persuasive, including which portions were persuasive and which were not.
2. Whether any deficiency in the ALJ's articulation required remand or was harmless in light of undisputed vocational-expert testimony that the disputed sit/stand limitations would not affect Sullivan's ability to perform available work.

Disposition

affirmed