Taylor v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 27

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered. For the foregoing reasons, Taylor's motion to reverse the Commissioner's decision, ECF 12 , is DENIED, and the Commissioner's motion to affirm that decision, ECF 15 , is GRANTED. The Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED.SO ORDERED. (Currie, Haley)

Case 1:24-cv-10533-JEK

Document 27

Filed 03/10/25

Page 1 of 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
JEANNE TAYLOR,
Plaintiff,
v.
LELAND DUDEK, 1
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:24-cv-10533-JEK

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REVERSE, AND
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO AFFIRM, THE COMMISSIONER’S DECISION
KOBICK, J.
Plaintiff Jeanne Taylor brings this action under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g),
to challenge the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying
her application for Social Security Disability Insurance (“SSDI”) benefits. Taylor contends that
the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred in concluding that she did not qualify as disabled
because, when assessing her ability to work at step four of the five-step evaluation process
prescribed by regulation, he failed to discuss her non-severe mental impairment, which he had
found at step two. Pending before the Court are Taylor’s motion to reverse the Commissioner’s
decision and the Commissioner’s motion to affirm that decision. Discerning no error, the Court
will deny Taylor’s motion and grant the Commissioner’s motion. Read as a whole, the ALJ’s
decision establishes that he properly considered all of Taylor’s impairments and limitations,
including her adjustment disorder and mental limitations, in determining her capacity to work.

1

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), the current Acting Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration, Leland Dudek, is substituted as the defendant in this action.

Case 1:24-cv-10533-JEK

Document 27

Filed 03/10/25

Page 2 of 10

BACKGROUND
I.

Statutory and Regulatory Framework.
The Social Security Administration administers the SSDI program by providing disability

insurance to covered workers. Seavey v. Barnhart, 276 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2001) (citing 42 U.S.C.
§§ 423, 1381a). Under the Social Security Act, a claimant “seeking disability benefits must prove
that she is unable ‘to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically
determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has
lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.’” Sacilowski
v. Saul, 959 F.3d 431, 433 (1st Cir. 2020) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A)). To determine if the
claimant is disabled within the meaning of the Act, the “ALJ employs a five-step test,” which “asks
questions that are sequential and iterative, such that the answer at each step determines whether
progression to the next is warranted.” Id. The five steps proceed as follows:
1) if the applicant is engaged in substantial gainful work activity, the application is
denied; 2) if the applicant does not have, or has not had within the relevant time
period, a severe impairment or combination of impairments, the application is
denied; 3) if the impairment meets the conditions for one of the “listed”
impairments in the Social Security regulations, then the application is granted; 4) if
the applicant’s “residual functional capacity” is such that he or she can still perform
past relevant work, then the application is denied; 5) if the applicant, given his or
her residual functional capacity, education, work experience, and age, is unable to
do any other work, the application is granted.
Seavey, 276 F.3d at 5 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.920). While the “claimant bears the burdens of
production and persuasion at steps one through four,” the ALJ must, at step five, “come forward
with evidence of jobs in the national economy that the claimant is able to perform.” Sacilowski,
959 F.3d at 434.
As relevant here, for purposes of step two, “[a]n impairment or combination of impairments
is not severe if it does not significantly limit [a claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic

2

Case 1:24-cv-10533-JEK

Document 27

Filed 03/10/25

Page 3 of 10

work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1522(a). To determine whether a mental impairment is severe,
the ALJ considers the so-called “paragraph B” criteria, which consist of “four broad functional
areas”: (1) understanding, remembering, or applying information; (2) interacting with others;
(3) concentrating, persisting, or maintaining pace; and (4) adapting or managing oneself. Id.
§ 404.1520a(c)(3). If the ALJ rates a claimant’s limitations as “none” or “mild,” he “will generally
conclude that [her] impairment(s) is not severe, unless the evidence otherwise indicates that there
is more than a minimal limitation in [her] ability to do basic work activities.” Id. § 404.1520a(d)(1).
Also pertinent in this case is a claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”), which “is the most
[she] can still do despite [her physical or mental] limitations.” Id. § 404.1545(a)(1); see Bowen v.
City of New York, 476 U.S. 467, 471 (1986) (RFC “measures the claimant’s capacity to engage in
basic work activities.”). When assessing a claimant’s RFC to perform the requirements of past
relevant work at step four, the ALJ “will consider all of [the claimant’s] medically determinable
impairments,” including those “that are not ‘severe.’” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 404.1545(a)(2).
II.

Factual and Procedural Background.
Taylor was 54 years old when she applied for SSDI benefits in September 2021. ECF 11,

at 56, 79. She is a high school graduate and has not worked since June 2019. Id. at 22. Before then,
she worked as a business development manager for a health services staffing company and had
held similar positions since 2004. Id. at 23-27. In her initial application for SSDI, she claimed to
suffer from depression and several physical impairments, including chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease (“COPD”), sciatica, heart rate issues, pain, and hand mobility limitations. Id. at 56.
After the Commissioner denied her application in May 2022 and denied reconsideration of
that decision in July 2022, Taylor received a hearing before an ALJ in November 2022. Id. at 79.
Following that hearing, the ALJ issued a decision again denying Taylor’s application in April

3

Case 1:24-cv-10533-JEK

Document 27

Filed 03/10/25

Page 4 of 10

2023. Id. at 79-89. At step one, the ALJ determined that Taylor had not engaged in substantial
gainful activity since the alleged onset of her disability on June 1, 2019. Id. at 81. At step two, he
determined that she had “the following severe impairments: asthma, COPD, obesity, cervical
degenerative disc disease, and osteophytes at L1-2 through L4-5.” Id. at 82. Turning to mental
impairments, the ALJ determined that Taylor’s adjustment disorder was a medically determinable
mental impairment that would cause her no more than “mild” limitations in each of the four
“paragraph B” areas of mental functioning. Id. at 82-84. He also explained that his RFC analysis
at step four “reflects the degree of limitation” he “found in the ‘paragraph B’ mental function
analysis.” Id. at 84. At step three, the ALJ concluded that Taylor did not have an impairment or
combination of impairments that met or equaled the severity of one of the listed impairments in
the Social Security regulations. Id. at 84-85. At step four, the ALJ found that Taylor had the RFC
“to perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b),” with some exceptions, and noted the
frequency with which she could execute a variety of physical motions and be exposed to certain
environmental stressors. Id. at 85 (emphasis omitted). With respect to Taylor’s mental impairment,
the ALJ did not explicitly address her non-severe adjustment disorder, but he noted that Taylor
sees a therapist weekly for depression and anxiety, and he recounted her testimony about her
mental limitations. Id. at 86. Overall, the ALJ determined that she could perform her past relevant
work as a business services sales agent because this work would “not require the performance of
work-related activities precluded by [her] residual functional capacity.” Id. at 88. The ALJ
concluded, accordingly, that Taylor was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security
Act. Id. at 88-89.
Following the Appeals Council’s denial of Taylor’s request to review the ALJ’s decision
in January 2024, that decision became the final decision of the Commissioner. Id. at 1-3. In March

4

Case 1:24-cv-10533-JEK

Document 27

Filed 03/10/25

Page 5 of 10

2024, Taylor filed this action for judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 405(g). ECF 1. She moved to reverse the Commissioner’s decision in June 2024, and the
Commissioner moved to affirm that decision in July 2024. ECF 12, 15. The Court held a hearing
on the parties’ competing motions in October 2024. ECF 26.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Social Security Act authorizes district courts “to enter, upon the pleadings and
transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing.” 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g). The Commissioner’s factual findings are “conclusive” if “supported by substantial
evidence.” Id. The court’s role is to determine “whether the final decision is supported by
substantial evidence and whether the correct legal standard was used.” Seavey, 276 F.3d at 9.
Courts “review questions of law de novo, but defer to the Commissioner’s findings of fact, so long
as they are supported by substantial evidence.” Ward v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 211 F.3d 652, 655
(1st Cir. 2000); see Biestek v. Berryhill, 587 U.S. 97, 102-03 (2019) (discussing “the substantialevidence standard”). Such findings are not entitled to deference “‘when derived by ignoring
evidence, misapplying the law, or judging matters entrusted to experts.’” Sacilowski, 959 F.3d at
437 (quoting Nguyen v. Chater, 172 F.3d 31, 35 (1st Cir. 1999)).
DISCUSSION
Taylor’s appeal of the Commissioner’s decision raises a single issue: whether the ALJ
committed an error of law by failing to discuss Taylor’s non-severe mental impairment and mild
mental limitations found at step two in fashioning her RFC at step four. ECF 13, at 3, 6 n.1. At
step two, the ALJ concluded that Taylor’s only medically determinable mental impairment—
adjustment disorder—would cause her no more than “mild” limitations. ECF 11, at 83-84. At step

5

Case 1:24-cv-10533-JEK

Document 27

Filed 03/10/25

Page 6 of 10

four, he addressed some of Taylor’s evidence concerning her mental limitations, but he did not
expressly mention her non-severe adjustment disorder again. Taylor contends that this omission
constitutes reversible error. The Commissioner, for his part, argues that the ALJ was not required
to expressly address Taylor’s mental impairment and mild mental limitations in his step-four RFC
analysis, where it is clear from the opinion as a whole that he considered those limitations in
evaluating Taylor’s RFC.
An ALJ must, as explained, “consider all of [a claimant’s] medically determinable
impairments,” even those that are not “severe,” in assessing the claimant’s RFC. 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.1545(a)(2). According to 1996 guidance from the Commissioner, “[t]he adjudicator must
remember that the limitations identified in the ‘paragraph B’ . . . criteria are not an RFC assessment
but are used to rate the severity of mental impairment(s) at steps 2 and 3 of the sequential
evaluation process,” and “[t]he mental RFC assessment used at steps 4 and 5 of the sequential
evaluation process requires a more detailed assessment by itemizing various functions contained
in the broad categories found in paragrap[h] B.” Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 96-8p, 1996 WL
374184, at *4 (July 2, 1996). As the First Circuit observed, “a finding of non-severity does not
relieve an ALJ of his obligation to consider a non-severe impairment’s impact on a claimant’s
overall medical condition.” Sacilowski, 959 F.3d at 440 (citing SSR 96-8p, at *5).
Here, the ALJ satisfied this obligation by adequately considering Taylor’s non-severe
mental impairment and mild mental limitations in fashioning her RFC. At step two, the ALJ stated
that he had “considered all of the claimant’s medically determinable impairments, including those
that are not severe, when assessing the claimant’s residual functional capacity.” ECF 11, at 82; see
Lopez v. Kijakazi, 704 F. Supp. 3d 279, 287-88 n.6 (D. Mass. 2023) (“By discussing the plaintiff’s
migraines in some depth at step two, the ALJ is presumed to have considered that impairment to

6

Case 1:24-cv-10533-JEK

Document 27

Filed 03/10/25

Page 7 of 10

the same extent in determining the claimant’s RFC,” given that “the ALJ acknowledge[d] that he
was required to consider all the plaintiff’s severe and non-severe impairments in determining her
RFC.”). He cited the psychological consultative examiner’s assessment of Taylor, which did “not
endorse any mental functional limitations,” as one of the reasons why her adjustment disorder did
not constitute a severe impairment. ECF 11, at 83. The ALJ also discussed Taylor’s mental abilities
and regular activities at length in examining the paragraph B criteria. See id. at 83-84. Finally, at
the end of his step-two analysis, the ALJ wrote that:
The limitations identified in the “paragraph B” criteria are not a residual functional
capacity assessment but are used to rate the severity of mental impairments at steps
2 and 3 of the sequential evaluation process. The mental residual functional
capacity assessment used at steps 4 and 5 of the sequential evaluation process
requires a more detailed assessment. The following residual functional capacity
assessment reflects the degree of limitation I have found in the “paragraph B”
mental function analysis.
Id. at 84. These first two sentences are consistent with agency guidance. See SSR 96-8p, at *4.
And the last sentence indicates that the ALJ’s consideration of the paragraph B criteria informed
his step-four RFC determination. See Robles v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 19-cv-1148-GLS, 2021
WL 3553788, at *4, *6 (D.P.R. Aug. 11, 2021) (concluding the same and that, based on nearly
identical language at step two, the ALJ sufficiently considered all of the claimant’s impairments,
including her mild mental impairment, in formulating her RFC); Margarita R.T. v. Comm’r of Soc.
Sec., No. 23-cv-1028-GLS, 2024 WL 1297882, at *3, *6 (D.P.R. Mar. 27, 2024) (similar); Benelli
v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 14-cv-10785-MBB, 2015 WL 3441992, at *20, *28 (D. Mass. May
28, 2015) (similar).
Next, at step four, the ALJ stated that in making his RFC determination, he “considered all
symptoms and the extent to which these symptoms [could] reasonably be accepted as consistent
with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.” ECF 11, at 85. He subsequently

7

Case 1:24-cv-10533-JEK

Document 27

Filed 03/10/25

Page 8 of 10

described the physical and mental symptoms that allegedly stemmed from Taylor’s various
impairments, including her depression and anxiety. See id. at 86. The ALJ then found that Taylor’s
“statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of these systems [were] not
entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record.” Id. He thus chose
not to credit Taylor’s complete account of her physical and mental symptoms in formulating her
RFC. The ALJ also observed, among other things, that Taylor was not “taking any medication for
psychiatric impairments,” had “never been hospitalized due to psychiatric symptoms,” and
“listen[ed] to audiobooks five to eight hours per day.” Id. at 86.
The Commissioner concedes that most of the discussion of Taylor’s mental limitations
occurred at step two. ECF 16, at 11. Taylor contends that relying on this step-two analysis is
improper because the ALJ was required to either include the mild mental limitations that he found
at step two in his RFC assessment at step four or explain why he omitted those limitations from
that assessment. This argument elevates form over substance. It is also inconsistent with First
Circuit precedent, which instructs that the ALJ’s analysis must be viewed “as a whole.” See Duffy
v. Berryhill, No. 17-1931, 2019 WL 2352960, at *1 (1st Cir. May 30, 2019) (“[E]ven if the record
arguably could support an RFC assessment that includes limitations in neck movement, it was
reasonable, viewing the record evidence as a whole, for the ALJ to omit such a limitation from the
RFC finding.”); Purdy v. Berryhill, 887 F.3d 7, 13 (1st Cir. 2018) (court must “revie[w] the
evidence in the record as a whole” when assessing whether the Commissioner’s findings are
supported by substantial evidence); see also Furey v. Saul, 501 F. Supp. 3d 29, 52 (D. Mass. 2020)
(“‘[I]t is proper to read the ALJ’s decision as a whole, and . . . it would be a needless formality to
have the ALJ repeat substantially similar factual analyses at [multiple] steps[.]’” (quoting Rice v.
Barnhart, 384 F.3d 363, 370 n.5 (7th Cir. 2004))). When read as a whole, the ALJ’s decision

8

Case 1:24-cv-10533-JEK

Document 27

Filed 03/10/25

Page 9 of 10

makes clear that he considered Taylor’s non-severe mental impairment and mild mental limitations
in fashioning her RFC. See Sacilowski, 959 F.3d at 440; Furey, 501 F. Supp. 3d at 51-52 (ALJ
“properly considered [claimant’s] back pain” in assessing her RFC by “devot[ing] a lengthy
paragraph” to it at step two).
Taylor’s principal reliance on Wells v. Colvin, 727 F.3d 1061 (10th Cir. 2013), is
misplaced. In Wells, the Tenth Circuit reversed the ALJ’s decision because it was unsupported by
substantial evidence. 727 F.3d at 1065, 1069; see Alvey v. Colvin, 536 F. App’x 792, 794 (10th
Cir. 2013) (“Ultimately, the problem in Wells was that the [ALJ’s] discussion was not supported
by substantial evidence.”). As a result, the Tenth Circuit did not reach the issue of whether the ALJ
improperly disregarded the non-severe mental impairments found at step two in his step-four RFC
analysis. See Wells, 727 F.3d at 1069 (concluding that “we need not determine whether the [ALJ’s]
discussion” of the claimant’s mental impairments in his RFC determination at step four, “though
far from comprehensive,” “was procedurally adequate”).
In this case, by contrast, Taylor does not challenge the ALJ’s weighing of the evidence.
ECF 13, at 6 n.1. Unlike the ALJ in Wells, the ALJ here did not make any affirmative statement at
step two suggesting that he excluded Taylor’s mental impairment from his RFC determination at
step four because it was non-severe. See 727 F.3d at 1065, 1069. Nor did the ALJ otherwise
conflate his analysis at those two steps. He recognized that “a more detailed [RFC] assessment”
was required at step four despite “[t]he limitations identified in the ‘paragraph B’ criteria” at step
two. ECF 11, at 84; see Suttles v. Colvin, 543 F. App’x 824, 826 (10th Cir. 2013) (distinguishing
Wells on this same ground based on substantively similar language). He also discussed Taylor’s
mental symptoms at step four. See ECF 11, at 86; Suttles, 543 F. App’x at 826 (“hold[ing] that the
ALJ conducted a mental RFC assessment separate from the non-severity determination made at

9

Case 1:24-cv-10533-JEK

Document 27

Filed 03/10/25

Page 10 of 10

step two,” where “the ALJ discussed evidence relating to depression and then pointedly omitted
any limitation associated with that mental impairment on the RFC” at step four); Munoz v. Comm’r
of Soc. Sec., No. 22-cv-1492-BJM, 2024 WL 1172666, at *9 (D.P.R. Mar. 19, 2024) (“[T]he ALJ’s
evaluation of the paragraph B criteria was sufficient” because she “evaluated the paragraph B
criteria at Step Two,” “incorporated this analysis when forming [claimant’s] RFC,” and “discussed
[his] mental condition in her evaluation of his RFC.”). Accordingly, the ALJ committed no
reversible error of law in his step-four RFC analysis.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, Taylor’s motion to reverse the Commissioner’s decision, ECF
12, is DENIED, and the Commissioner’s motion to affirm that decision, ECF 15, is GRANTED.
The Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Julia E. Kobick
JULIA E. KOBICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: March 10, 2025

10