ST. LOUIS — The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has upheld the denial of disability insurance benefits to a Missouri woman, concluding that substantial evidence supported an administrative law judge’s finding that she was not disabled during the period at issue.
In a decision filed Aug. 28, a three-judge panel affirmed a lower court ruling that had upheld the Social Security Administration’s decision. Judge Jonathan Kobes wrote the opinion, joined by Judges Jane Kelly and Steven Grasz. The appeal came from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri in St. Louis.
Rachael Michelle Post had sought benefits for a closed period running from June 3, 2016, through Aug. 5, 2021. She stopped working at a retail job in June 2016 after surgery on her right hand and forearm, with a doctor restricting her from work and from lifting more than five pounds.
She underwent similar surgery on her left hand and forearm the following month and later had surgery on her left elbow and wrist after persistent pain continued.
In February 2017, Post was diagnosed with thoracic outlet syndrome, a condition involving compression of nerves or blood vessels between the collarbone and first rib that can cause pain, numbness and tingling in the upper extremities.
She was referred to a vascular surgeon, Dr. Robert Thompson, who performed thoracic outlet release surgery on her left shoulder in March 2017. She applied for disability insurance benefits about a month later.
In her report to the Social Security Administration, Post said she could not lift more than five pounds and that repetitive motions caused her hands to lock up.
The court noted that she also reported being able to perform personal care, drive, prepare meals, wash dishes, shop for groceries and do laundry.
Thompson later imposed restrictions on sustained overhead activity, prolonged repetitive activity and lifting, pushing or pulling more than five pounds with Post’s left upper extremity.
But physical therapy records showed improvement, with Post meeting six of seven long-term goals.
A physician who reviewed her records for the agency, Dr. John Marshall Jung, concluded that she could frequently lift up to 10 pounds and had no limitations in reaching, handling or fingering.
Post underwent additional surgery on her right shoulder in September 2017 and later had further shoulder surgery in 2019.
The record included periods in which medical providers found full range of motion, normal grip strength or full strength in her upper extremities. It also included continuing lifting restrictions from Thompson and other providers, at times limiting Post to five pounds.
By 2020, Post had reported that she could throw a Nerf football with her son, care for her family while her brother was hospitalized, help clean her nephew’s apartment and frequently do housework.
In September 2020, she had full shoulder strength and range of motion and no longer needed physical therapy. Thompson said in August 2021 that she could return to work with a five-pound lifting limit, and Post returned to work as a cafeteria cashier on Aug. 13, 2021.
The administrative law judge found that Post could perform sedentary work, defined in the decision as lifting no more than 10 pounds at a time and occasionally lifting or carrying small articles, so long as she avoided climbing.
The judge also found she could frequently handle, finger and reach. A vocational expert testified that significant numbers of jobs in the national economy existed for people with those limitations, leading the judge to conclude that Post had not been disabled.
On appeal, Post argued that the judge should not have relied on Jung’s opinion and that the evidence instead established a five-pound lifting limit.
The appellate court said the administrative law judge had adequately considered the opinion’s consistency with Post’s reported activities and medical records showing normal strength, full range of motion and normal grip strength.
The court also rejected Post’s argument that Jung’s 2017 opinion had been undermined by later surgeries and years of treatment.
The panel said later recoveries, including periods of full strength and range of motion and a temporary increase in her lifting limit to 10 pounds, were consistent with the opinion that she could lift up to 10 pounds.
The court concluded that the judge’s decision fell within the permitted “zone of choice” and affirmed the denial of benefits.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit case number: 25-2081
