ARDLEY v. COLVIN
1:16-cv-00008
N.D. Fla.Dec 7, 2016Background
- Plaintiff Raymond Ardley applied for SSDI alleging disability from November 19, 2010, based on headaches, balance problems, hearing/tinnitus, vision changes, and back/leg pain following a 2007 head injury and craniotomy; ALJ denied benefits and Appeals Council denied review.
- Record includes: post-operative recovery with largely normal CT in 2008; a 2010 pre-placement exam finding no work restrictions; consultative exams in 2011–2013 showing mostly normal strength, gait, sensation, and vision; and a 2013 neurology exam noting some left-sided decreased sensation, mild left foot dorsiflexion lag, and subjective daily headaches.
- Plaintiff had intermittent work and unemployment benefits after the alleged onset date (including ~$3,200 earnings in 2012), and reported inconsistent medical follow-up for symptoms.
- Treating/consultative opinions: State agency reviewer (Dr. Stone) found no major restrictions (medium work); neurologist Dr. Dewey (one-time examiner, 12/2013) opined severe limitations (sitting/standing/walking under 8 hours total, cane required, marked manipulative/visual/ambulation limits).
- ALJ found severe impairments of migraine headaches and history of cerebral trauma, assessed an RFC for medium work with limitations (avoid concentrated hazards; occasional ramps/stairs, balance/stoop/kneel/crouch/crawl; never ladders/ropes/scaffolds), rejected parts of claimant testimony as not fully credible, gave little weight to Dr. Dewey, and concluded plaintiff could perform past relevant work and other jobs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ALJ credibility assessment under Eleventh Circuit pain standard | Ardley argues the ALJ improperly discounted his pain/subjective symptom testimony | Commissioner contends the ALJ gave explicit, supported reasons (work after onset, inconsistent statements, gaps in care, objective findings, conflicting opinions) | Court: ALJ applied the standard, articulated adequate reasons supported by substantial evidence; credibility finding affirmed |
| Weight given to Dr. Dewey (one-time examiner) | Ardley argues ALJ erred in giving Dr. Dewey little weight and failed to address all sub-opinions | Commissioner argues Dr. Dewey was a one-time examiner, relied heavily on claimant’s subjective reports, and his restrictions conflict with objective findings and other examiners | Court: ALJ permissibly discounted Dr. Dewey for stated reasons (one-time exam, inconsistency with record, lack of objective support); RFC still accounts for relevant limitations |
Key Cases Cited
- Foote v. Chater, 67 F.3d 1553 (11th Cir. 1995) (defines substantial-evidence review and Eleventh Circuit pain credibility framework)
- Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206 (11th Cir. 2005) (claimant testimony of pain may establish disability under three-part test)
- Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2011) (ALJ must state with particularity the weight given to medical opinions and reasons)
- McSwain v. Bowen, 814 F.2d 617 (11th Cir. 1987) (opinion of one-time examiner not entitled to treating-source deference)
- Walker v. Bowen, 826 F.2d 996 (11th Cir. 1987) (burden shifting and use of the vocational grids)
- Keeton v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 21 F.3d 1064 (11th Cir. 1994) (courts must reverse where ALJ applies incorrect law or fails to provide sufficient reasoning)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1971) (standard for substantial evidence in administrative proceedings)