Alston v. Colvin
4:13-cv-00065
| E.D. Va. | Feb 14, 2014Background
- Alston sought review of the Commissioner's denial of DIB and SSI; hearing requested a March 25, 2010 onset date instead of June 26, 2007; ALJ denied benefits and Appeals Council declined review; case proceeded to federal review; ALJ found Alston not disabled under five-step analysis; Alston argued improper onset date amendment, flawed medical opinion weighing, and lack of credibility support.
- Alston had a history of back and knee problems beginning in 2004–2007 with initial improvement through physical therapy; record shows intermittent treatment and a gap in 2007–2010; August–September 2010–2011 opinions from Dr. Lorenzo and other physicians; state agency consultants provided RFC assessments (Moreno, Constant); VE testified about past work and other job options.
- ALJ found insured status through 12/31/2012; concluded back/knee impairments were severe but not meeting a listed impairment; RFC limited to light work with specific postural and environmental restrictions; past work not performed; jobs exist in the national economy for a person with the RFC; denial affirmed.
- Alston challenges: (1) the RFC flawed by misweighing medical evidence; (2) credibility determination inadequate; (3) harmless onset-date amendment error.
- Court reviewed for substantial evidence and proper legal standard; standard five-step framework applied; ALJ considered medical opinions, treatment history, daily activities, and medication response in evaluating symptoms and RFC.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| RFC supported by medical evidence? | Alston contends the ALJ improperly weighed Dr. Lorenzo’s treating-opinion. | ALJ weighed all evidence, gave less weight to inconsistent findings, and relied on medications and exams. | RFC supported by substantial evidence; rational weight given to Lorenzo's opinion was explained. |
| Credibility of Alston’s symptoms? | Alston argues his pain and limitations were credible and supported by records. | ALJ found complaints inconsistent with objective findings and conservative treatment. | ALJ properly evaluated credibility; substantial evidence supports the decision. |
| Onset-date amendment error harmless? | ALJ failed to amend onset date to March 25, 2010 as requested. | ALJ considered evidence from June 2007 onward; error, if any, was harmless. | Harmless error; consideration encompassed period from June 2007 through decision. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650 (4th Cir. 2005) (substantial evidence standard; fifth-step burden shift to Commissioner)
- Havs v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453 (4th Cir. 1990) (credibility/symptom evaluation framework)
- Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585 (4th Cir. 1996) (two-step pain evaluation and RFC determination)
- Perales v. Richardson, 402 U.S. 389 (1981) (disability definition and substantial-evidence standard)
- Laws v. Celebrezze, 368 F.2d 640 (4th Cir. 1966) (foundational procedural/medical-evidence framework)
- Gordon v. Schweiker, 725 F.2d 231 (4th Cir. 1984) (non-examining consultants may inform RFC; must be explained)
- Pass v. Chater, 65 F.3d 1200 (4th Cir. 1995) (burden-shifting at steps five; treatment of evidence)