John V. v. Frank Bisignano

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied Plaintiff John V.’s motion to reverse and remand the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision and granted the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment. The court held that the ALJ properly considered post-hearing psychological evidence, adequately accounted for the claimant’s moderate limitations in concentration, persistence, and pace, and did not err by failing to address alleged probationary-period requirements that were not raised with specificity before the vocational expert.

Holdings

1. The ALJ did not improperly play doctor by summarizing the MMPI-2 results in the consulting psychologist's report, and the ALJ properly relied on the medical expert's opinion because Plaintiff did not show that the later MMPI-2 evidence reasonably could have changed that opinion.
2. The ALJ's limitation to simple, routine, repetitive work without fast-paced hourly production goals adequately accounted for Plaintiff's moderate limitations in concentration, persistence, and pace and was supported by substantial evidence.
3. Plaintiff forfeited the challenge concerning probationary or training-period requirements by failing to raise specific objections or questions about the requirements of the identified occupations before the administrative record closed. In any event, Plaintiff presented no evidence that the occupations required training he could not perform.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the ALJ improperly interpreted post-hearing MMPI-2 evidence or improperly relied on the medical expert's opinion despite that evidence.
2. Whether substantial evidence supported the RFC limitation addressing Plaintiff's moderate limitations in concentration, persistence, and pace.
3. Whether the ALJ erred by failing to account for alleged limitations associated with completing probationary or training periods for the representative occupations identified by the vocational expert.

Disposition

affirmed