Anderson v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of
1:11-cv-02105
N.D. OhioJan 28, 2013Background
- Lonnie Anderson challenged the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of supplemental security income in the Eastern District of Ohio, with consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction.
- Anderson, 23 years old at the time of the hearing, had mental impairments including borderline intellectual functioning, plus GERD and prior left hip fracture.
- The ALJ found no past relevant work and concluded Anderson could perform a full range of work with nonexertional limits: simple tasks, short instructions, few workplace changes, no production-rate pace, no instruction writing or math, and no reports.
- The ALJ determined Anderson did not meet or medically equal Listing § 12.05C, and relied on the VE to identify a significant number of jobs he could perform.
- Anderson contends the decision is not supported by substantial evidence, particularly regarding Listing § 12.05C and Dr. Voyten’s opinion (state agency psychologist).
- The court affirms the Listing § 12.05C finding but reverses the RFC finding for lack of substantial evidence and remands for proper consideration of Dr. Voyten’s opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Anderson meets Listing § 12.05C | Anderson asserts entry of mental retardation criteria is met by IQ scores and impairment. | The record shows borderline functioning and multiple opined non-retardation diagnoses; IQ data are disputed but do not satisfy 12.05C. | Affirmed on the § 12.05C listing determination. |
| Whether the RFC is supported by substantial evidence | RFC should incorporate Voyten’s limitations identifying need for supervision and direction. | RFC supported by record, with nonexamining opinions less weighty under certain conditions. | Reversed for want of substantial evidence due to failure to address Voyten’s opinion. |
| Weight given to non-examining state agency opinions vs examining sources | The ALJ failed to explain why Voyten’s opinion was not incorporated in RFC. | Non-examining sources can be accorded greater weight when based on complete record; disagreement explained by record. | Remanded to reconsider RFC with proper articulation of Voyten’s opinion. |
| Effect of the VE hypothetical including Voyten’s limitation | If Voyten’s limitation is included, jobs identified by VE would not exist. | The ALJ should have clarified weight and considered the limitation when posing hypotheticals. | Remand to address Voyten’s limitation in the RFC and VE questioning. |
| Whether the case should be remanded for reconsideration | Remand necessary to properly evaluate Voyten’s opinion. | Record supports some findings; but might not require remand if RFC justified. | Remanded for RFC reconsideration with Voyten’s opinion properly analyzed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Foster v. Halter, 279 F.3d 348 (6th Cir. 2001) (guides analysis of diagnostic criteria and accompanying evidence)
- Smith v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 482 F.3d 873 (6th Cir. 2007) (weight of consultative opinions and treatment history in RFC framing)
- Ealy v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 594 F.3d 504 (6th Cir. 2010) (standard for evaluating weight of non-examining opinions)