Arthur Whitehead v. Carolyn Colvin, Acting Cmsnr
820 F.3d 776
5th Cir.2016Background
- Arthur Whitehead applied for Social Security disability benefits alleging neck/spine injury and related limitations after a 2010 workplace slip; he sought an onset date of August 15, 2010.
- A July 2011 Functional Capacity Evaluation (FCE) concluded Whitehead could perform light work with restrictions (e.g., 2–4 hours static standing, occasional overhead work, carry 20/10 lbs); treating physician Dr. Isaza repeatedly concurred.
- Consultative and nonexamining reviewers offered more restrictive assessments (Dr. Toliver: lift 5–10 lbs; Dr. Nugent: 9-lb frequent lift and limited right-hand handling), and a primary care letter referenced possible cord impingement.
- The ALJ held a hearing, found Whitehead had severe cervical spine disease but did not meet Listing 1.04(A), assigned the RFC for light work with specific limitations (no ladders/overhead right-arm reaching; occasional stoop/kneel/crouch), and denied benefits at step five based on VE testimony.
- The Appeals Council denied review after considering additional treatment records; the district court affirmed, and Whitehead appealed to the Fifth Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Whitehead’s Argument | Commissioner’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Appeals Council failed to adequately consider new evidence | Appeals Council ignored/new records undermined ALJ’s findings and warranted remand | Appeals Council considered records and need not discuss them; new records largely confirm existing evidence | Denied — new evidence did not materially alter the record or require remand (Sun governs) |
| Whether ALJ applied wrong standard at step three re: Listing 1.04(A) | ALJ improperly required MRI/EMG or misapplied listing criteria | ALJ simply found record lacked requisite evidence of nerve root/spinal cord compression; substantial evidence supports that finding | Denied — no indication ALJ applied improper legal standard; substantial evidence supports step three finding |
| Whether RFC is supported by substantial evidence | RFC too lenient given consultative opinions and other records | ALJ gave great weight to treating physician and FCE; other opinions had inconsistencies and less persuasiveness | Denied — RFC supported by substantial evidence and proper weight to treating opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- Newton v. Apfel, 209 F.3d 448 (5th Cir. 2000) (standard: review for substantial evidence and correct legal standards)
- Boyd v. Apfel, 239 F.3d 698 (5th Cir. 2001) (no-substantial-evidence standard where no credible evidentiary choices support decision)
- Sun v. Colvin, 793 F.3d 502 (5th Cir. 2015) (Appeals Council need not discuss new evidence or explain denial of review)
- Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521 (1990) (to meet a listing, claimant must satisfy all specified criteria)
- Audler v. Astrue, 501 F.3d 446 (5th Cir. 2007) (ALJ error where step-three reasons were absent and no contrary medical evidence existed)