Gathright v. Social Security Administration, 2:19-cv-07961

Background

Claimant John M. Gathright (age 51) applied for Disability Insurance Benefits for a closed period alleging onset November 1, 2015; he sought benefits through April 3, 2017 but his insured status ended March 31, 2016.
Gathright has prior work as a medical/drug sales representative and returned to work on April 3, 2017; he did not appear at the December 12, 2017 hearing.
ALJ Mary Gattuso found severe spinal impairments but concluded Gathright was not disabled through the last insured date; she adopted a residual functional capacity (RFC) for light work with specific postural and safety limits and restricted to unskilled/routine tasks.
The ALJ gave fair weight to the State Agency medical consultant’s opinion (medium work/50 lb. max) and noted limited medical records during November 1, 2015–March 31, 2016; several more invasive treatments and the May 20, 2016 MRI (synovial cyst) occurred after the insured period.
The vocational expert testified that, given the ALJ’s RFC, jobs (e.g., general office clerk, information clerk, interviewer) existed in significant numbers; the magistrate judge recommended affirming the Commissioner’s denial of benefits.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ALJ failed to perform a proper function-by-function RFC assessment	Gathright: ALJ neglected a function-by-function RFC and relied on pre-period agency review	Commissioner: State Agency and limited in-period records were considered; ALJ’s adoption of that opinion was proper	Court: No reversible error; State Agency considered February 2016 and ALJ’s approach was supported given sparse in-period records
Whether ALJ ignored relevant medical evidence (MRI, invasive treatments)	Gathright: Post-onset MRIs and procedures show greater severity and support more restrictive RFC	Commissioner: Key MRI and invasive procedures occurred after March 31, 2016 (outside insured period) and need not be credited for insured-period disability	Court: Evidence postdating last-insured is not dispositive; ALJ properly limited review to relevant period
Whether the RFC and vocational hypothetical were unsupported by substantial evidence	Gathright: ALJ rejected counsel’s hypotheticals that reflected more restrictive limits and lay-down/sit-stand needs	Commissioner: RFC based on record, State Agency opinion, and claimant’s reported activities; VE testified jobs existed under that RFC	Court: RFC and VE testimony rest on substantial evidence; ALJ permissibly rejected hypotheticals relying on post-period treatment
Whether ALJ mischaracterized treatment as conservative	Gathright: ALJ downplayed bursa injections, neurotomy, and SCS as conservative when they were significant	Commissioner: Those advanced treatments occurred after the closed period; pre-period/in-period care was conservative	Court: Characterization reasonable for the insured period; advanced treatments were post-period and not controlling

Key Cases Cited

Allen v. Schweiker, 642 F.2d 799 (5th Cir. 1981) (reviewing court may not reweigh evidence)
Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971) (substantial evidence standard)
Villa v. Sullivan, 895 F.2d 1019 (5th Cir. 1990) (five-step sequential evaluation framework)
Anderson v. Sullivan, 887 F.2d 630 (5th Cir. 1989) (burden shifts at step five)
Demandre v. Califano, 591 F.2d 1088 (5th Cir. 1979) (claimant must be disabled on or before last insured date)
Owens v. Heckler, 770 F.2d 1276 (5th Cir. 1985) (timing of disability onset and insured status)
Myers v. Apfel, 238 F.3d 617 (5th Cir. 2001) (treatment and agency opinion analysis)
Jenkins v. Astrue, [citation="250 Fed. App'x 645"] (5th Cir. 2007) (ALJ may reject hypotheticals based on evidence outside relevant period)
Anthony v. Sullivan, 954 F.2d 289 (5th Cir. 1992) (limitations on consideration beyond insured period)
Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (procedural rule re: objections to magistrate judge recommendations)