Ball v. Social Security Administration
2:17-cv-00017
| M.D. Tenn. | Mar 30, 2018Background
- Plaintiff Sheila Dianna Ball applied for SSI and DIB (later amending onset to Nov. 18, 2013) alleging back, foot, and obesity-related limitations; applications denied and appealed to ALJ; ALJ denied benefits on Jan. 21, 2016; Appeals Council denied review.
- ALJ found severe impairments: degenerative disc disease, obesity, and major-joint dysfunction; RFC: medium work with occasional climbing and frequent stooping/kneeling/crouching/crawling.
- ALJ relied heavily on consultative examiner Dr. Dorris and state-agency reviewers, giving those opinions "great weight."
- Treating/provider Dr. Harold Lowe completed a September 2015 medical source statement asserting severe functional limits (e.g., never raise arms overhead, off-task 90%, need to lie down 2–3 times/day); the ALJ summarized but did not analyze or assign weight to Lowe’s opinion nor acknowledge treating-source status.
- Vocational expert testified that with the ALJ’s RFC claimant could perform past work and other medium, unskilled jobs; with Dr. Lowe’s restrictions claimant would be unemployable.
- Magistrate Judge recommends remand, concluding the ALJ failed to apply the treating-source rule and did not provide "good reasons" for discounting Dr. Lowe’s opinion; harmless-error doctrine not applied because error was not plainly harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ properly weighed treating physician opinion | Ball: ALJ failed to apply treating-source rule and did not give "good reasons" for discounting Dr. Lowe’s opinion | Comm’r: ALJ implicitly rejected Lowe’s opinion (no controlling weight) and decision is supported by substantial evidence; any error harmless | Remand: ALJ erred by not applying the treating-source framework or articulating reasons; remand required for proper analysis |
| Whether RFC and step 4/5 findings supported without treating opinion analysis | Ball: If Lowe credited, RFC would preclude past work and other jobs | Comm’r: Substantial evidence (Dorris, state reviewers, VE) supports RFC and step 4/5 findings | Court found error not harmless because Lowe’s opinions, if credited, would change outcome; RFC/step findings must be re-evaluated on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Comm'r of Social Security, 378 F.3d 541 (6th Cir. 2004) (ALJ must give "good reasons" for discounting treating-source opinions)
- Gayheart v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365 (6th Cir. 2013) (treating-source opinions get deference; must be supported and not inconsistent with record)
- Jones v. Comm'r of Social Security, 336 F.3d 469 (6th Cir. 2003) (ALJ may discredit treating opinion if not supported by objective evidence but must give reasoned basis)
- Blakley v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399 (6th Cir. 2009) (reasons for weighting treating opinion must be specific and supported by record)
- Miller v. Comm'r of Social Security, 811 F.3d 825 (6th Cir. 2016) (substantial-evidence standard; ALJ must follow agency rules or decision lacks support)
- Key v. Callahan, 109 F.3d 270 (6th Cir. 1997) (court must uphold agency finding if supported by substantial evidence)
- Allen v. Berryhill, 273 F. Supp. 3d 763 (M.D. Tenn. 2017) (applying treating-source rule; remand required where ALJ failed to give controlling weight or explain rejection)
- Robert v. Tesson, 507 F.3d 981 (6th Cir. 2007) (failure to object to magistrate judge's report waives de novo review)