Bates v. Colvin
4:16-cv-01413
E.D. Mo.Sep 29, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Kimberly Lynne Bates applied for Social Security disability insurance benefits, alleging disability as of March 29, 2011; insured status ended March 31, 2012.
- ALJ found severe impairments: obesity, disorders of muscle/ligaments/fascia and unspecified arthropathies of left arm, and asthma, but no listing-level impairment.
- ALJ assessed an RFC through the date last insured limiting Bates to light work with: never climbing ropes/ladders; occasional ramps/stairs; occasional reaching, gross and fine manipulation with the non-dominant left hand; and simple, routine, repetitive tasks.
- ALJ concluded Bates could not perform past relevant work but could perform certain unskilled light jobs (office helper, photofinishing counter clerk, parking lot attendant); relied on vocational expert testimony and Medical-Vocational Rule 201.28.
- Bates appealed, arguing (1) RFC failed to account for exertional limits reflected in treating physician opinions, and (2) ALJ did not resolve conflicts between the vocational expert (VE) testimony and the DOT.
- District Court affirmed the Commissioner, holding the ALJ’s RFC and VE reliance were supported by substantial evidence and any DOT conflict was harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ erred by omitting specific exertional limits in RFC | Bates: treating physician (Dr. Poetz) imposed limits on walking/standing and lifting/carrying (including no lifting/carrying with left arm) that make RFC more restrictive than ALJ found | Commissioner: RFC incorporated exertional restrictions via postural/upper-extremity limits; medical record (including pre-DLI exams) does not support greater limits; Dr. Poetz’s findings are consistent with light work | Court held substantial evidence supports ALJ’s RFC; pre-DLI records and Dr. Poetz’s 2012 opinion (frequent carry 10 lbs) are consistent with light work |
| Whether ALJ failed to identify/resolve conflicts between VE testimony and DOT regarding frequent reaching/handling/fingering | Bates: VE’s jobs (office helper, cashier) require frequent use of hands and conflict with RFC restricting non-dominant hand to occasional use; also alleged conflict with DOT reasoning level vs. RFC’s “simple routine repetitive tasks” | Commissioner: At least one job (counter clerk) matches RFC (occasional hand use); any conflict with other jobs is harmless because one compatible job exists; Level 2 reasoning is compatible with simple, routine, repetitive work per Eighth Circuit | Court held any conflict was harmless because the counter clerk job is consistent with RFC; reasoning-level argument rejected under controlling precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Sims v. Apfel, 560 U.S. 103 (U.S. 2000) (administrative finality of ALJ decision when Appeals Council denies review)
- Goff v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 785 (8th Cir. 2005) (claimant bears burden through step four; ability to work despite impairment is probative)
- Moore v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 520 (8th Cir. 2009) (RFC is most a claimant can do despite limitations)
- Jones v. Callahan, 122 F.3d 1148 (8th Cir. 1997) (post‑DLI deterioration cannot establish disability prior to DLI)
- Cox v. Barnhart, 471 F.3d 902 (8th Cir. 2006) (medical evidence outside insured period may be used to elucidate condition during insured period)
- McCoy v. Astrue, 648 F.3d 605 (8th Cir. 2011) (step‑four past work analysis and RFC comparison)