865 F. Supp. 2d 767
W.D. Tex.2012Background
- Acosta, born 1960 in Mexico, sought disability benefits for depression, hearing loss, hypertension, and migraines; English-speaking ability is limited.
- ALJ found the last date insured December 31, 2011, and concluded Acosta was not disabled from Jan 3, 2008 to Nov 19, 2009, based on a full range of medium work RFC.
- Acosta has a long work history including a nine-year stint as a machine operator; migraines and medication side effects were present during and prior to the alleged period of disability.
- Psychiatric evaluations diagnosed major depressive disorder and borderline intellectual functioning; treating and consulting professionals provided varying assessments of social functioning and concentration.
- The district court reviewed the Commissioner’s denial for substantial evidence and proper legal standards, ultimately affirming the ALJ’s decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ used the proper severity standard for mental impairment | Acosta argues the ALJ applied a minimal-effect standard inconsistent with the Fifth Circuit. | Acosta's standard aligns with SSA rules (minimal effect) as supported by SSA rulings. | ALJ used proper standard consistent with Fifth Circuit |
| Whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s non-severity finding for depressive disorder | Record shows more than minimal limitations in social functioning and concentration. | Longitudinal evidence and expert opinions support only mild limitations. | Substantial evidence supports mild, not more than mild, impairment |
| Whether the RFC adequately reflects all credible limitations | RFC omits nonexertional limitations from depression, hearing loss, hypertension, migraines, and meds. | RFC properly reflects credible evidence and Carrillo’s opinion; no need to add unsupported limitations. | RFC without extra limitations is supported |
| Whether the ALJ needed a specific finding on the ability to sustain employment | Intermittent symptoms require a determination Acosta can maintain employment. | Singletary/Watson standards do not require a separate sustainment finding in this context. | No separate sustainment finding required; not error |
Key Cases Cited
- Estran v. Heckler, 745 F.2d 340 (5th Cir. 1984) (adopted slight abnormality standard for non-severity)
- Martin v. Heckler, 748 F.2d 1027 (5th Cir. 1984) (non-severity must reflect more than a slight abnormality with minimal effect)
- Stone v. Heckler, 752 F.2d 1099 (5th Cir. 1985) (non-severity standard tied to minimal effect; Stone remand guidance)
- Loza v. Apfel, 219 F.3d 378 (5th Cir. 2000) (requires not merely a slight abnormality; consider more than minimal impact)
- Perez v. Barnhart, 415 F.3d 461 (5th Cir. 2005) (five-step framework; burden shift at step five; RFC context)