Reported / Citable
Background
Charity Vanessa Hathorn appealed the Social Security Commissioner’s March 5, 2025 final decision finding that she was no longer disabled as of August 1, 2019. Hathorn had originally applied for benefits in 2009 and received a disability determination effective June 15, 2008.
Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell recommended affirming the Commissioner and dismissing the appeal with prejudice. Hathorn objected, arguing that the report used the wrong regulations to assess the administrative law judge’s treatment of medical-opinion evidence.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle agreed that the pre-March 27, 2017 medical-opinion regulations—20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927—governed Hathorn’s claim because her application was filed in 2009. The magistrate judge had instead applied the newer framework in § 404.1520c.
The error did not change the result. Nurse Russell, the only treating provider to offer an opinion, was a nurse practitioner and thus an “other source” under the applicable rules, not an acceptable medical source entitled to treating-physician deference. The ALJ also gave appropriate, specifically supported reasons for according substantial weight to consultative examiners Dr. Nissley and Dr. Kranz. The court held that Hathorn had not shown legal error by the ALJ or a lack of substantial evidence.
Key Takeaways
- The medical-opinion rules in effect when a claimant filed the benefits application govern the claim.
- Using an incorrect regulatory framework in a report and recommendation may be harmless when the result is unchanged under the correct framework.
- Under the pre-2017 rules, a nurse practitioner’s opinion was not entitled to the deference afforded an acceptable medical source’s treating opinion.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that courts reviewing Social Security cases must apply the correct temporal version of the medical-opinion regulations. But it also confirms that a regulatory-analysis error will not require remand where the ALJ’s assessment remains supported under the applicable standard.
The court adopted the report only insofar as it recommended affirmance and dismissal, overruled Hathorn’s objection, affirmed the Commissioner’s decision, and dismissed the case with prejudice.