Abdullah Amir v. Comm. of Social Security
705 F. App'x 443
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Claimant Abdullah Shrif Amir (born 1964) applied for SSDI and SSI alleging disability beginning Feb 22, 2012; ALJ denied benefits and the Appeals Council declined review. District court affirmed; this appeal follows.
- Medical record: diagnoses included arthritis of the feet, bilateral pes planus, cervical degenerative disc disease, and lumbago; imaging generally showed mild/minimal degenerative changes.
- Treating orthopedist Dr. Jiab Suleiman completed a March 2012 form stating Amir was unable to work and gave marked functional limitations (e.g., limited standing/walking, lifting <10 lbs).
- ALJ gave little weight to Dr. Suleiman’s opinion, found Amir capable of a limited range of light work with frequent handling, required sit/stand option every 30 minutes, and various postural restrictions, and concluded Amir could perform other jobs in the national economy.
- Primary contested issues on appeal: (1) whether the ALJ properly discounted the treating physician opinion, (2) whether the ALJ properly assessed Amir’s subjective pain complaints/credibility, and (3) whether the ALJ lawfully resolved step five given Amir’s limited English and the vocational expert testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weight to treating physician (Dr. Suleiman) | ALJ improperly discounted treating opinion that Amir is unable to work and severely limited. | ALJ permissibly gave little weight because the form was prepared for another agency, included a legal conclusion reserved to the Commissioner, and conflicted with objective exams, imaging, consultative exam (Dr. Shidyak), and claimant activities. | Affirmed — ALJ provided adequate, supported reasons; substantial evidence supports discounting the March 2012 opinion. |
| Credibility of pain and symptom testimony | ALJ misstated/misweighed daily activities and failed to credit subjective pain limiting ability to work. | ALJ reasonably found inconsistencies (medical records, positive Waddell’s/overreaction, intermittent medication use, normal exam findings) undermining full credibility; ALJ accounted for limitations in RFC. | Affirmed — substantial evidence supports ALJ’s credibility finding and RFC limitations. |
| Step five / English-language limitation and VE reliance | ALJ failed to include claimant’s limited English in hypothetical to VE, which would reduce available jobs. | VE considered rudimentary English in testimony; jobs identified did not require reading or advanced English; inability to speak English does not automatically establish disability at step five. | Affirmed — substantial evidence supports step-five finding; VE testimony adequately addressed language issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Valley v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 427 F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 2005) (standard of review and substantial-evidence test)
- Wilson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541 (6th Cir. 2004) (treating-physician rule and controlling-weight framework)
- Walters v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 127 F.3d 525 (6th Cir. 1997) (ALJ credibility determinations entitled to deference)
- Buxton v. Halter, 246 F.3d 762 (6th Cir. 2001) (existence of a zone of choice for ALJ decisions)
- Rogers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234 (6th Cir. 2007) (two-prong pain/symptom evaluation)
- Maziarz v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 837 F.2d 240 (6th Cir. 1987) (use of vocational expert when non-exertional limitations exist)