Cindy S. v. Commissioner of Social Security

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio overruled Plaintiff’s objections to a Report and Recommendation and affirmed the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of Supplemental Security Income benefits. The court held that treatment-note recommendations to elevate the plaintiff’s legs were not medical opinions requiring evaluation under the supportability and consistency factors, and that the ALJ did not err by omitting a leg-elevation restriction from the residual functional capacity.

Holdings

1. Routine treatment-note recommendations that a claimant elevate her legs, without stating what the claimant can still do despite the impairment or identifying specific functional limitations or restrictions, do not constitute medical opinions under 20 C.F.R. § 416.913(a)(2).
2. The ALJ did not err by omitting a leg-elevation limitation from the residual functional capacity where no medical provider opined that Plaintiff's edema caused work-related functional limitations or required leg elevation to heart level, for a specified duration, at specified intervals, or beyond breaks, lunch, and nonworking periods.
3. The court overruled Plaintiff's objections, adopted the Report and Recommendation, and affirmed the Commissioner's non-disability finding.

Questions Presented

1. Whether treatment notes recommending leg elevation constituted medical opinions that the ALJ was required to evaluate for supportability and consistency under 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c.
2. Whether the ALJ erred by omitting a leg-elevation limitation from Plaintiff's residual functional capacity.
3. Whether any alleged errors were prejudicial or harmless.

Disposition

affirmed