SLEAP v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
3:20-cv-14002
| D.N.J. | Feb 16, 2022Background:
- Plaintiff Lisa Sleap (b. 1980) alleged disability beginning Sept. 5, 2016, based on Lyme disease, hyperthyroidism, arthralgia, migraines, anxiety, and depression; she applied for Title II benefits in May 2017.
- Medical record: Lyme diagnosis in 2015; intermittent antibiotic and alternative (herbal/homeopathic) treatment; consultative physical and psychological exams largely showed normal physical findings and only mild cognitive/mental limitations.
- Treating physician Dr. Lisa Zimmerman opined (May 2019) extreme limitations: <2 hours sit/stand/walk per day, no reaching/grasping, frequent off-task time (≥25%), and ≥4 absences/month. State agency reviewers found medium work capacity.
- ALJ (May 23, 2019) found chronic Lyme disease, hyperthyroidism, and arthralgia severe; headaches and mental disorders non-severe; RFC = sedentary work, no overhead reaching, limited to simple 1–2 step tasks and "detailed but uninvolved" standardized tasks. VE identified other sedentary/medium jobs existing in the national economy.
- Commissioner denied benefits; district court affirmed, holding the ALJ’s step-two, step-three, RFC, and medical-opinion analyses were supported by substantial evidence.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Step 2 severity (headaches, depression, anxiety) | Sleap: headaches and mental conditions were well-documented and meet the de minimis threshold for severity | Commissioner: records and exams show minimal mental findings and conservative/no treatment, supporting non-severe classification | Court: ALJ’s non-severe findings supported by substantial evidence (normal exams, limited treatment, consultative findings) |
| Step 3 — listings (12.04/12.06 and 14.09D) | Sleap: mental impairments meet 12.04/12.06; Lyme-related inflammatory arthritis meets 14.09D (severe fatigue/malaise and marked limitations) | Commissioner: ALJ correctly did not evaluate mental listings because mental impairments were non-severe at step two; evidence does not establish listing-level 14.09D criteria | Court: No error—no duty to analyze mental listings after non-severe step-two finding; record fails to show the marked limitations/constitutional signs required for 14.09D |
| Persuasiveness of Dr. Zimmerman’s opinion | Sleap: treating Lyme specialist with longstanding relationship; opinion consistent with records and symptoms, should be credited | Commissioner: ALJ properly found Zimmerman’s opinion unsupported and inconsistent with normal exams, lack of diagnostic testing, and other medical evidence | Court: ALJ permissibly discounted Zimmerman’s extreme limitations as not well-supported and inconsistent with the record, per applicable regulatory factors |
| RFC — off-task time and absenteeism | Sleap: ALJ ignored Zimmerman’s opinion that Sleap would be off-task ≥25% and miss ≥4 days/month; VE testified employers wouldn’t tolerate that | Commissioner: ALJ need not adopt limitations he finds not credible; ALJ accounted for subjective complaints and adopted conservative sedentary RFC | Court: ALJ’s RFC (sedentary, no overhead reaching, simplified tasks) was supported by substantial evidence; discounting Zimmerman’s absentee/off-task restrictions was reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Matthews v. Apfel, 239 F.3d 589 (3d Cir. 2001) (standard of review for Commissioner’s factual findings)
- Knepp v. Apfel, 204 F.3d 78 (3d Cir. 2000) (substantial-evidence review explained)
- McCrea v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 370 F.3d 357 (3d Cir. 2004) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Plummer v. Apfel, 186 F.3d 422 (3d Cir. 1999) (ALJ must consider all evidence and explain reasons for discounting)
- Simmonds v. Heckler, 807 F.2d 54 (3d Cir. 1986) (upholding agency decision despite contrary evidence if supported by substantial evidence)
- Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137 (1987) (five-step disability evaluation framework)
- Burnett v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 220 F.3d 112 (3d Cir. 2000) (ALJ must indicate evidence rejected and reasons)
- Chandler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 667 F.3d 356 (3d Cir. 2011) (ALJ—not physicians—makes the RFC determination)
- Morales v. Apfel, 225 F.3d 310 (3d Cir. 2000) (ALJ may reject treating physician’s opinion if inconsistent with other substantial evidence)