Gilroy v. Astrue

Citation: 351 F. App'x 714Docket: No. 08-4908

Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; November 8, 2009; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Billie Jo Gilroy appeals a summary judgment favoring the Commissioner in her Social Security disability claim. The court affirms the decision, referencing the record reviewed by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), which includes a report from Gilroy’s treating psychiatrist, Dr. Wang, who assigned a Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) score of 45. Gilroy argues that the ALJ erred by not adequately addressing the rejection of this score or reconciling it with his conclusions. The court notes that while Dr. Wang's report indicates serious symptoms and impairment, it does not specify limitations or directly correlate to the criteria for disability under Social Security regulations. The ALJ determined that Gilroy suffered from severe impairments, including bipolar disorder and major depression, but assessed her overall functional capacity as capable of performing simple, routine tasks with moderate limitations in social functioning. The ALJ's reasoning is supported by substantial evidence, and his conclusion that Gilroy's GAF rating did not necessitate a finding of disability is consistent with Dr. Wang's observations. Consequently, the court finds no requirement for further explanation from the ALJ regarding the GAF score, as it aligns with his assessment of Gilroy's limitations.

Gilroy and her husband testified before the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) regarding her impairments and their effect on her work ability, but the ALJ found their testimonies only partially credible. This assessment was based on Gilroy's daily activities, objective medical evidence, and treating medical opinions regarding her condition. Gilroy contends that the ALJ erred by not explaining the rejection of her husband's testimony; however, the ALJ's reasoning for partially crediting both testimonies was sufficiently clear. 

Gilroy requested the District Court to remand her case to the Commissioner to consider three new items of evidence: a mental evaluation report by Dr. Groves from August 30, 2007, a report by Dr. Deines from June 6, 2008, and a notice of Social Security disability benefits from August 1, 2008. The District Court declined the remand, determining it did not abuse its discretion. Under 42 U.S.C. 405(g), evidence must be new, material, and demonstrate good cause for not being included earlier. Gilroy failed to show good cause for not presenting Dr. Groves’ evaluation to the ALJ or that it would have reasonably changed the outcome of the decision. The report added little to the evidence already presented and did not alter the ALJ's finding that her mental impairments were severe but not disabling. Dr. Deines’ evaluation, conducted after the relevant period of disability determination, also did not pertain to the time in question, leading the District Court to conclude it was not material to the case.

The District Court's judgment is affirmed based on the assessment of Gilroy's capabilities during her alleged disability. Despite claiming disability, Gilroy engaged in various daily activities, including working as a nurse's aide and a labor packager, managing household chores, and caring for her personal needs independently. She maintained social interactions and could follow instructions and assist her son with homework. Gilroy received minimal mental health treatment, with her first psychiatric evaluation occurring nearly three years post-disability claim, and she never required hospitalization. Medical records indicate improvement in her symptoms with treatment, although she showed noncompliance. Her psychiatrist noted adequate insight, judgment, impulse control, normal speech, and intact cognition. A state agency psychologist concluded that Gilroy’s impairments did not meet any listed criteria, affirming her ability to work.