Amos v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
3:20-cv-00147
S.D. Miss.Aug 18, 2021Background
- Plaintiff Latonia Amos (onset July 12, 2017, age 44) applied for DIB and SSI alleging Chiari I malformation with post‑surgical headaches and pain; claims were denied and she requested a hearing.
- ALJ hearing occurred Jan. 15, 2019; claimant and a vocational expert (VE) testified. The ALJ issued an unfavorable decision in March 2019, then a revised unfavorable decision on May 7, 2019.
- The ALJ found severe impairments (Chiari I, neck/headaches, low back pain, depression), assessed an RFC for light work with limitations including restriction to simple, routine, repetitive (unskilled) tasks.
- At the hearing the ALJ posed a hypothetical including a sit/stand‑at‑will option; the VE testified that such an RFC produced no jobs. The ALJ later rejected the sit/stand limitation in the written decision, citing treatment records.
- At step five the ALJ relied exclusively on Medical‑Vocational Rule 202.21 (the Grids) to find Amos not disabled, without explaining whether VE testimony was required to assess the effect of the mental nonexertional limitation.
- Amos argued (1) the ALJ erred by using the Grids without VE testimony because the limitation to simple, routine, repetitive tasks may significantly affect the occupational base, and (2) her due‑process rights were violated when the ALJ altered the RFC post‑hearing without giving her an opportunity to supplement the record or obtain additional VE testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ could rely on Grid Rule 202.21 at step five despite claimant’s limitation to simple, routine, repetitive tasks | Amos: mental nonexertional limitation may significantly reduce the unskilled occupational base; VE testimony required before using the Grids | ALJ: concluded nonexertional limitations had little or no effect on occupational base and applied Rule 202.21 | Remand recommended: ALJ erred by relying solely on Rule 202.21 without first addressing whether VE testimony was needed to assess the effect of the mental limitation |
| Whether ALJ violated due process by changing RFC after the hearing without allowing further development (additional VE testimony) | Amos: ALJ changed RFC post‑hearing and should have given opportunity to supplement record and obtain VE input | Commissioner: ALJ not bound by hearing hypothetical; decision is final only when issued in writing | Denied: Magistrate found Amos provided no supporting authority and rejected the procedural/due process claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148 (explains the substantial‑evidence standard)
- Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683 (agency factfinding is conclusive unless unreasonable)
- Harrell v. Bowen, 862 F.2d 471 (Grids may be used when claimant's factors coincide with a rule)
- Crowley v. Apfel, 197 F.3d 194 (nonexertional impairments that significantly affect RFC preclude use of the Grids)
- Talbot v. Heckler, 814 F.2d 1456 (ALJ must substantiate a finding that a nonexertional limitation has negligible effect)
- Selian v. Astrue, 708 F.3d 409 (ALJ must determine whether nonexertional limitations are negligible before relying on the Grids)
- Bapp v. Bowen, 802 F.2d 601 (ALJ must consider whether the range of work is so diminished as to require vocational testimony)
- Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Assoc., 79 F.3d 1415 (procedural rules for objections to magistrate recommendations)