ST. LOUIS - The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri affirmed a judgment by an administrative law judge to deny disability benefits to Robin L. Pinilla after finding that the plaintiff was not disabled.
Pinilla argued that following her work as a licensed practical nurse and certified nurse assistant at the St. Louis Psychiatric Center, she developed an anxiety disorder due to feeling overwhelmed by the number of patients compared to the small number of staff. She argued her panic attacks resulting from anxiety kept her from keeping a job.
Pinilla filed for disability benefits in November 2013 for bipolar disorder, depression and anxiety. She also alleged a disability onset date of January 2010.
The administrative law judge, unnamed in court records, argued that there were jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy that Pinilla could have performed because of her past work as a receptionist. Her transferable skills led the judge to conclude that Pinilla did not qualify for disability benefits.
Pinilla argued the court erred in weighing the opinion of her treating psychiatrist, Dr. Savita Bhat and erred in relying on a vocational expert’s opinion that there were jobs she could perform.
The plaintiff argued that Bhat's testimony should have been given more weight in the decision. During the clinical evaluation with Pinilla, Bhat found that Pinilla would be "off-task at least 20 percent of an eight-hour workday and would need redirection one to two times per day," according to court documents.
The court argued that the administrative law judge had substantial evidence to limit the weight of Bhat’s opinions where they lacked consistency.
During the first assessment, the court noted Bhat opined the plaintiff would have mild to moderate restriction in the workplace. In the second assessment, Bhat opined Pinilla would have marked difficulty in her ability to maintain social functioning and concentration. Thus, the court reasoned Bhat's testimony should receive less weight.
The court further argued that the judge properly relied on the vocational expert's testimony because it "captured the concrete consequences of the claimant's deficiencies," according to court documents.
U.S. Magistrate Judge David D. Noce signed the opinion of the court on April 23.