Barger v. Berryhill
2:16-cv-00011
W.D. Va.Sep 18, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Timothy Barger applied for Disability Insurance Benefits alleging seizures, back/knee pain, anxiety and depression; application denied by ALJ on Nov. 4, 2014, and Appeals Council denied review.
- ALJ found severe impairments including seizure disorder and musculoskeletal and mental conditions, but concluded claimant retained RFC for unskilled light work with restrictions (no driving, hazardous machinery, unprotected heights, ladders/ropes/scaffolds; no more than occasional reaching or excessive vibration).
- Medical evidence: treating neurologist Dr. Nathan Fountain documented recurrent complex partial seizures (2–5/month in later records) but normal neuro exams and EEG/MRI; Treating F.N.P. Melinda Wright opined claimant was unable to work; evaluating psychologists Lanthorn and Burke gave significant mental limitations (some marked/extreme).
- State agency reviewers assessed medium-to-light RFC with fewer restrictions than treating/evaluating sources; vocational expert testified jobs exist for the ALJ’s RFC but none if the Lanthorn/Burke limitations applied.
- District court remanded: found ALJ failed to adequately analyze or explain weight given to treating/evaluating clinicians and failed to address state agency experts’ opinions; but agreed ALJ reasonably found §11.02 (epilepsy listing) not met because claimant’s seizures were complex partial without documented convulsions or loss of consciousness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ’s RFC is supported by substantial evidence | ALJ erred in weighing medical opinions; should have given controlling weight to Wright (treating F.N.P.) and to Lanthorn/Burke (evaluating mental health providers) leading to a more restrictive RFC | ALJ properly discounted those opinions as unsupported by objective findings and inconsistent with record; RFC supported by substantial evidence | Remand — ALJ failed to analyze and explain weight given to state agency and other medical opinions; record not sufficiently considered to support RFC finding |
| Whether ALJ properly considered state agency medical opinions | ALJ omitted discussion/weight of state agency physicians’ additional restrictions | Commissioner: state agency opinions were considered in the administrative process and ALJ accounted for relevant restrictions in RFC | Remand — ALJ failed to indicate weight given to state agency experts and did not reconcile differences in restrictions |
| Whether claimant met or equaled Listing §11.02 for epilepsy | Barger (and Dr. Fountain) argued seizures occurred more frequently than monthly despite treatment and met listing criteria | Commissioner/ALJ noted lack of documented convulsive daytime episodes or loss of consciousness as required by §11.02 | Affirmed on listing point — substantial evidence supports that seizures were complex partial (no documented grand mal/loss of consciousness), so §11.02 not met |
| Whether ALJ properly weighed mental health evidence | ALJ gave only little weight to Lanthorn and Burke because of one-time exams/limited contacts and asserted lack of supporting objective findings | Commissioner contends ALJ permissibly discounted opinions for those reasons and relied on other record evidence | Remand — court found ALJ insufficiently analyzed inconsistencies and did not adequately explain weight accorded to mental opinions; similarly failed to address state agency PRTF findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Coffman v. Bowen, 829 F.2d 514 (4th Cir. 1987) (standard for reviewing Commissioner’s factual findings: substantial evidence)
- Hays v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453 (4th Cir. 1990) (definition and application of substantial evidence standard)
- Sterling Smokeless Coal Co. v. Akers, 131 F.3d 438 (4th Cir. 1997) (ALJ must analyze relevant evidence and explain findings)
- Arnold v. Sec’y of Health, Educ. & Welfare, 567 F.2d 258 (4th Cir. 1977) (ALJ must consider all relevant evidence and explain weight given to probative exhibits)
- Wilkins v. Sec’y of Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 953 F.2d 93 (4th Cir. 1991) (administrative record must include evidence considered by Appeals Council on review)