Beatty v. Berryhill, 7:15-cv-00223

Freddie Beatty applied for DIB and SSI in March 2012, alleging disability from October 1, 2011; ALJ issued an adverse decision May 19, 2014; Appeals Council denied review.
ALJ found severe impairment: lumbar disc degeneration; non-severe impairments: diabetes, hypertension, hernia; RFC: medium work with frequent climbing, balancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, crawling, pushing and pulling.
ALJ discounted claimant's symptom statements in part because Beatty retained a commercial driver’s license, drove ~100 miles/week, reported occasional pain relieved by OTC Aleve, and performed household tasks.
After the hearing, the ALJ ordered a consultative exam by Dr. Gebrail, who documented diminished sensation in hands and feet and opined Beatty would have difficulty with heavy lifting, prolonged sitting/standing, bending, pushing/pulling, climbing and frequent position changes.
Magistrate judge found the ALJ failed to (1) adequately consider diabetic neuropathy arising from diabetes at later steps, and (2) address or reconcile Dr. Gebrail’s opinion (and the VE’s testimony about positional change) with the RFC; credibility analysis was upheld.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ALJ erred at step two by not finding diabetes severe	Beatty: diabetes causes neuropathy and should be treated as severe or at least must be considered at later steps	Berryhill: any step-two error is harmless because ALJ discussed diabetes in RFC and record lacks objective neuropathy evidence	Court: Remand — ALJ failed to account for documented neuropathy in later steps, so error was not harmless
Whether RFC properly accounted for consultative examiner’s findings	Beatty: ALJ ignored or misattributed Dr. Gebrail’s exam and opinion that functional limitations would impair medium work	Berryhill: ALJ considered the consultative exam and afforded the opinion little weight	Court: Remand — ALJ did not meaningfully discuss or reconcile Dr. Gebrail’s opinion (misattributed to a nurse practitioner) nor address inconsistency with VE testimony about position changes
Whether ALJ’s credibility finding was proper	Beatty: ALJ improperly discounted symptom statements	Berryhill: ALJ’s credibility determination is supported by evidence of activity, driving, and effective OTC treatment	Court: Affirmed — credibility analysis supported by substantial evidence

Coffman v. Bowen, 829 F.2d 514 (4th Cir. 1987) (scope of judicial review limited to substantial evidence and correct legal standards)
Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585 (4th Cir. 1996) (definition and standard for substantial evidence and credibility framework)
Mastro v. Apfel, 270 F.3d 171 (4th Cir. 2001) (court should not reweigh evidence or make credibility determinations)
Sterling Smokeless Coal Co. v. Akers, 131 F.3d 438 (4th Cir. 1997) (review requires consideration of all relevant evidence and explanation of weight given)
Albright v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 174 F.3d 473 (4th Cir. 1999) (five-step disability evaluation framework)
Pass v. Chater, 65 F.3d 1200 (4th Cir. 1995) (burden allocation across the five-step evaluation)
Reichenbach v. Heckler, 808 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1985) (RFC requires combined analysis of all impairments)
Gordon v. Schweiker, 725 F.2d 231 (4th Cir. 1984) (ALJ must indicate weight given to relevant evidence)
Evans v. Heckler, 734 F.2d 1012 (4th Cir. 1984) (definition of "severe" impairment)
Maziarz v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 837 F.2d 240 (6th Cir. 1987) (failure to find an impairment severe at step two is not reversible error if the impairment is considered at later steps)