Berry v. Social Security Administration
1:18-cv-00046
M.D. Tenn.Aug 20, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Connie Berry (born 1973) applied for Disability Insurance Benefits (Title II) alleging onset April 23, 2014; application denied by ALJ on Sept. 11, 2017; Appeals Council denied review, making ALJ decision final.
- ALJ found Berry severe impairments: asthma, diabetes with neuropathy, morbid obesity, degenerative disc disease (cervical/lumbar), and hypertension; RFC: less than full range of light work with sit/stand for up to 6 hours, hourly sit/stand option, occasional exposure limits, and two-hour segments for concentration/pace.
- Medical evidence included: 2015 consultative exam by Dr. Dake (relatively normal exam, light-work ability), two 2015 state-agency RFC opinions (Drs. Wallace and Singh supporting light work with periodic sit/stand), 2016–17 treating notes from PCP Dr. Herrera (conservative treatment, mostly normal exams), and a 2017 exam/RFC from Dr. Collier (more restrictive limits) which Dr. Herrera later endorsed.
- ALJ gave substantial weight to state-agency consultants and Dr. Dake, little weight to Drs. Collier and Herrera, concluding treating/two-examiner opinions were overly restrictive and inconsistent with longitudinal records showing conservative treatment and largely normal physical exams.
- Plaintiff raised four appellate issues: (1) improper weighing of medical opinions (treating vs. non-treating); (2) RFC did not account for all impairments; (3) ALJ erred at step three by not finding listings met/medically equaled (Listings 9.00, 11.14, 1.04); (4) ALJ not constitutionally appointed under the Appointments Clause (post-Lucia challenge). Magistrate Judge recommended denying relief and affirming the Commissioner.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weight given to treating opinions (Dr. Herrera/Collier) | ALJ improperly rejected treating/examining opinions and elevated outdated/nonexamining opinions without good reasons | ALJ reasonably discounted treating/examining opinions as inconsistent with treatment notes, conservative care, and objective findings; state consultants are qualified and opinions were not contradicted by later evidence | ALJ provided "good reasons"; substantial evidence supports giving greater weight to state consultants and Dr. Dake and little weight to Drs. Collier/Herrera |
| RFC omitted impairments / VE testimony | RFC failed to include all limitations; VE testified that Herrera’s limitations preclude work | RFC reflects record-supported limitations; ALJ permissibly declined Herrera/Collier restrictions as unsupported | RFC supported by substantial evidence; ALJ permissibly declined more restrictive RFC based on treating/examining opinions |
| Step three listings (9.00, 11.14, 1.04) | Berry met or equaled listings for diabetes/neuropathy and spinal disorders | Record lacks objective, longitudinal findings satisfying all listing criteria; no treating/examining source found listing-level impairment | ALJ’s limited step-three discussion was not reversible error; plaintiff failed to point to evidence meeting all listing criteria; any error was harmless |
| Appointments Clause (Lucia) | ALJ was not constitutionally appointed; plaintiff could not have raised timely before Lucia; requests remand for new hearing | Plaintiff waived challenge by not raising at administrative level; courts in this circuit have routinely found waiver; no persuasive excuse for delay | Appointments Clause challenge deemed waived/undeveloped; remand not warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 811 F.3d 825 (6th Cir. 2016) (standard of review and RFC/context for five-step analysis)
- Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148 (2019) (definition and scope of substantial evidence standard)
- Gentry v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 741 F.3d 708 (6th Cir. 2014) (treating physician rule and requirement to follow SSA rules)
- Lucia v. S.E.C., 138 S. Ct. 2044 (2018) (Appointments Clause holding regarding ALJ appointments)
- Jones Bros., Inc. v. Sec’y of Labor, 898 F.3d 669 (6th Cir. 2018) (application of Lucia and administrative exhaustion considerations)
- Wilson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541 (6th Cir. 2004) (treating physician rule and harmless-error principle)