Arcaute v. Commissioner of Social Security
1:15-cv-00755
W.D. Mich.Aug 18, 2016Background
- Norma Arcaute (age 60 at ALJ decision) applied for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB), alleging disability from December 1, 2009; insured status expired December 31, 2012.
- Initial ALJ denied benefits; Appeals Council remanded; second ALJ decision again denied benefits on January 17, 2014; Appeals Council declined review and district court review followed.
- ALJ found at step two the severe impairment of lumbago but no listing-level impairment and assessed a residual functional capacity (RFC) for the full range of light work through the date last insured.
- At step four the ALJ determined Arcaute could perform past relevant work as an assembler and quality inspector and therefore was not disabled from Dec. 1, 2009 through Dec. 31, 2012.
- Plaintiff challenged (1) the step-two severity findings (arguing additional severe lumbar impairments), (2) the RFC (arguing the ALJ erred in discounting treating physicians’ opinions), and (3) the credibility assessment.
- District court affirmed the ALJ: found the step-two finding adequate, the ALJ reasonably discounted treating physicians’ check-box opinions, and the credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Step-two severity | ALCAUTE: ALJ erred by labeling only "lumbago" severe and omitted degenerative disc disease, herniations, radiculopathy, lordosis | NEFF/SSA: ALJ’s finding of lumbago is supported by record and, having found a severe impairment, any omission was harmless because ALJ considered the whole record | Court: No error; lumbago supported by record and failure to list every diagnosis is harmless where ALJ considered all impairments |
| Weight to treating opinions | ALCAUTE: ALJ gave insufficient weight to Drs. Novis and O’Connor (treating sources) and impermissibly substituted his judgment | NEFF/SSA: ALJ permissibly discounted check-box opinions as inconsistent with objective findings, claimant’s activities, and (for O’Connor) opinions post-date insured period | Court: ALJ gave adequate, supported reasons for assigning little weight to those opinions |
| Use of post-insured evidence | ALCAUTE: Post-date evidence should support more restrictive RFC | NEFF/SSA: Medical evidence after date last insured is only probative to the extent it illuminates condition before expiration; here it is minimally probative | Court: Properly treated post-insured evidence as limited; justified discounting O’Connor’s opinion |
| Credibility / Boilerplate language | ALCAUTE: ALJ used boilerplate credibility language and failed to properly evaluate subjective complaints | NEFF/SSA: ALJ provided specific, substantive reasons elsewhere in decision linking record inconsistencies and claimant activities to discount credibility | Court: Credibility finding supported by detailed explanation and substantial evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Brainard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 889 F.2d 679 (6th Cir. 1989) (scope of judicial review in Social Security cases limited to proper legal standards and substantial evidence)
- Garner v. Heckler, 745 F.2d 383 (6th Cir. 1984) (court may not reweigh evidence or resolve credibility de novo)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971) (definition of substantial evidence as relevant evidence a reasonable mind might accept)
- Mullen v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 535 (6th Cir. 1986) (substantial evidence standard allows a zone where decision-maker may reasonably decide either way)
- Jones v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 336 F.3d 469 (6th Cir. 2003) (claimant’s burden through step four and Commissioner’s burden at step five)
- Gayheart v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365 (6th Cir. 2013) (treating physician rule requires giving controlling weight when well-supported and not inconsistent; ALJ must give good reasons when not controlling)
- Wilson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541 (6th Cir. 2004) (reasons requirement for discounting treating source opinions to permit meaningful review)
- Higgs v. Bowen, 880 F.2d 860 (6th Cir. 1988) (post-insured medical evidence is of limited probative value)
- Rogers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234 (6th Cir. 2007) (step-two severity is a de minimis hurdle; only slightly abnormal impairments may be found not severe)