Berry v. Social Security Administration
6:16-cv-00307
E.D. Okla.May 10, 2017Background
- Claimant Robin Berry (b. 1971) applied for DIB and SSI alleging disability from July 17, 2011 due to seizures, memory loss, anxiety, depression and related conditions; applications denied and ALJ issued unfavorable decision March 17, 2015; Appeals Council denied review.
- ALJ found severe impairments: epilepsy, depression, anxiety; assessed an RFC for a full range of work at all exertional levels with non‑exertional limits (simple and some complex tasks, superficial coworker/supervisor contact, no public contact, avoid hazards related to seizures when noncompliant with meds).
- ALJ relied on consultative exams (Dr. Gattis: MoCA 16/30; Dr. Danaher: WAIS‑III VIQ 78, PIQ 70, FSIQ 72 but questioned validity), medical records showing seizures controlled with Dilantin when compliant, and testimony; vocational expert identified representative jobs (floor waxer, hand packer, sorter).
- Claimant challenged ALJ for (1) not carrying step‑two seizure finding into RFC appropriately, (2) failing to consider Listing 12.05C (intellectual disability), and (3) inadequate consideration of third‑party testimony and credibility analysis.
- Magistrate Judge concluded the ALJ applied correct legal standards and that substantial evidence supports the decision; recommended affirming the Commissioner.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Inclusion of seizure limitations in RFC | Berry says ALJ failed to translate severe seizure impairment at step two into adequate RFC restrictions (e.g., hazards, machinery, productivity loss) | ALJ limited hazard exposure and noted seizures controlled with medication; no medical evidence required greater restrictions | ALJ did not err; RFC supported by medical record and no evidentiary basis for additional limits |
| Consideration of Listing 12.05C (mental retardation) | Berry argues ALJ failed to evaluate 12.05C despite low IQ scores and low GAF | ALJ considered relevant mental listings, noted WAIS‑III results and questioned validity; record lacks evidence of adaptive deficits with onset before age 22 | No reversible error: claimant bears burden to show all listing elements, record lacks evidence of childhood onset/adaptive deficits |
| Duty to develop record / need for additional consultative exam | Berry contends ALJ should have ordered further testing given inconsistent testing and low GAF | ALJ considered the inconsistency and had no statutory/regulatory trigger to order consultative testing; standards for ordering C/E not met | No duty violation: bases for ordering consultative exam not present and additional testing wouldn’t cure lack of childhood adaptive‑functioning evidence |
| Credibility and third‑party testimony assessment | Berry asserts ALJ failed to properly assess credibility and mother’s testimony | ALJ linked claimant’s statements to medical evidence and cited inconsistencies; credibility findings are the ALJ’s province | Credibility determination adequately linked to substantial evidence; no reversal required |
Key Cases Cited
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (Sup. Ct. 1971) (defines substantial evidence standard)
- Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521 (Sup. Ct. 1990) (claimant must meet all listing criteria; partial manifestation insufficient)
- White v. Barnhart, 287 F.3d 903 (10th Cir. 2002) (RFC must reflect activities claimant can perform on a regular and continuing basis)
- Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474 (Sup. Ct. 1951) (substantiality of evidence must consider record that detracts from weight)
- Andrade v. Sec. of Health & Human Servs., 985 F.2d 1045 (10th Cir. 1993) (ALJ must follow procedures for evaluating mental impairments)
- Kepler v. Chater, 68 F.3d 387 (10th Cir. 1995) (credibility findings must be closely and affirmatively linked to substantial evidence)