MONTOYA v. KIJAKAZI
1:20-cv-01157
M.D.N.C.Jan 11, 2022Background
- Plaintiff Glynis Kate Montoya filed for SSI in 2018 (alleging onset 1/1/2016); ALJ denied benefits on May 21, 2020 and the Appeals Council denied review.
- ALJ found severe impairments: depression, anxiety, PTSD, autism spectrum disorder, degenerative disc disease, and obesity, but no listing-level impairment.
- ALJ assessed an RFC for light work with numerous restrictions (limited climbing, avoid hazards, simple low‑stress tasks, superficial public contact, work in proximity but not coordination with others, reasoning level 2–3, sustain concentration in two‑hour intervals).
- Treating providers (Dr. Jennifer Kirby, psychologist; Dr. Jennifer Siddle, psychiatrist) opined Montoya could not maintain full‑time work; state agency non‑examining psychologists found less restrictive limitations.
- ALJ found treating opinions unpersuasive, relied on generally normal mental‑status exam findings, Montoya’s reported activities of daily living, and state‑agency opinions; Magistrate Judge recommended upholding ALJ decision.
- Plaintiff also argued the Appeals Council ignored a post‑decision clarifying statement from Dr. Siddle; the court treated any Appeals Council omission as harmless and denied relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ improperly rejected treating opinions (Kirby, Siddle) | Treating opinions reflect work‑preclusive mental limitations and were improperly discounted | ALJ permissibly found opinions unpersuasive because they were inconsistent with treatment notes, activities, and not well supported | ALJ’s weighing was supported by substantial evidence; treating opinions not persuasive |
| Whether ALJ erred in evaluating Montoya’s subjective symptom testimony | ALJ misstated/overstated daily activities and failed to credit qualifying testimony about frequency/severity | ALJ reasonably discounted some testimony based on inconsistent objective records, activities, and state‑agency opinions; ALJ still limited RFC for low‑stress/simple work | ALJ conducted proper two‑step Craig analysis; subjective allegations only partially credited and RFC accounted for limitations |
| Whether Appeals Council erred by not considering Dr. Siddle’s post‑decision statement | Appeals Council ignored new, material evidence that would change outcome | Even if ignored, the statement was cumulative, not new or material, and claimant failed to show good cause for late submission | Any Appeals Council error was harmless: statement was cumulative, plaintiff showed no good cause, and no reasonable probability of a different outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Schweiker, 795 F.2d 343 (4th Cir. 1986) (scope of judicial review of the Commissioner is limited)
- Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585 (4th Cir. 1996) (two‑step credibility/symptom evaluation; substantial evidence standard)
- Wilkins v. Secretary, Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 953 F.2d 93 (4th Cir. 1991) (standards for new and material evidence for remand)
- Albright v. Commissioner, 174 F.3d 473 (4th Cir. 1999) (use of the five‑step sequential evaluation)
- Arakas v. Commissioner, Social Security Admin., 983 F.3d 83 (4th Cir. 2020) (ALJ must accurately describe claimant’s activities and account for qualifiers)
- Woods v. Berryhill, 888 F.3d 686 (4th Cir. 2018) (ALJ’s obligation to explain evaluation of medical opinions under pre‑2017 rules and limits on cherry‑picking)
- Shively v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 987 (4th Cir. 1984) (deference to ALJ credibility findings when supported by record)
- Reid v. Commissioner of Social Security, 769 F.3d 861 (4th Cir. 2014) (ALJ need not discuss every piece of evidence when determining RFC)