MARQUEZ v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
2:20-cv-07883
D.N.J.Mar 1, 2022Background
- Michelle M. applied for Title II Disability Insurance Benefits on December 12, 2016, alleging disability beginning June 14, 2016; application denied at initial and reconsideration stages.
- Hearing before ALJ Peter R. Lee on January 8, 2019; ALJ issued decision March 27, 2019 denying benefits at step five; Appeals Council denied review May 7, 2020.
- ALJ found severe impairments: degenerative disc disease, traumatic brain injury/post‑concussion syndrome, headaches, diminished cognitive ability, depressive disorder, and anxiety.
- ALJ concluded claimant did not meet Listings (1.04, 12.02, 12.04, 12.06), found mostly moderate (and one mild) mental limitations, and assessed an RFC for a restricted range of light work with specified non‑exertional limits.
- ALJ discounted low cognitive test scores from Dr. Bartlett because Bartlett reported possible malingering; state‑agency reviewers and treating notes showed improvement with treatment and only moderate limitations.
- Vocational expert identified representative light, low‑skill jobs (photocopy machine operator; office helper; housekeeping cleaner); District Court affirmed the Commissioner on March 1, 2022.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claimant met or equaled a mental listing at Step 3 | Michelle M. argues her mental impairments meet Paragraph B (one extreme or two marked limitations) based on low cognitive test scores and functional complaints | Commissioner: ALJ properly found only moderate/mild limitations, discounted Dr. Bartlett's scores because of malingering indicators, and relied on other medical evidence showing improvement | Court: Affirmed — ALJ's Step 3 findings supported by substantial evidence |
| Whether the RFC is supported by substantial evidence | Michelle M. contends the RFC fails to account for Dr. Bartlett's low test scores and her subjective pain reports | Commissioner: ALJ reasonably summarized the medical record, discounted inconsistent/malingering evidence, considered pain but found it not fully supported by objective evidence | Court: Affirmed — ALJ built a logical bridge from the record to the RFC; substantial evidence supports RFC |
Key Cases Cited
- Schaudeck v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 181 F.3d 429 (3d Cir. 1999) (standard of plenary review of legal issues)
- Sykes v. Apfel, 228 F.3d 259 (3d Cir. 2000) (review limited to whether record contains substantial evidence)
- Jones v. Barnhart, 364 F.3d 501 (3d Cir. 2004) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Poulos v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 474 F.3d 88 (3d Cir. 2007) (burden at step five shifts to Commissioner)
- Podedworny v. Harris, 745 F.2d 210 (3d Cir. 1984) (remand and reversal standards)
- Burnett v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 220 F.3d 112 (3d Cir. 2000) (requirement that ALJ’s decision contain adequate reasoning)
- Adorno v. Shalala, 40 F.3d 43 (3d Cir. 1994) (ALJ must explicitly weigh relevant, probative, available evidence)
- Shinaberry v. Saul, 952 F.3d 113 (4th Cir. 2020) (‘‘logical bridge’’ principle connecting evidence and RFC)