History
  • No items yet
midpage
Biestek v. Commissioner of Social Security
880 F.3d 778
| 6th Cir. | 2017
Read the full case

Background

  • Michael J. Biestek (born May 4, 1963) applied for SSDI and SSI claiming disability beginning October 28, 2009; SSA initially denied, ALJ denied, Appeals Council denied, district court remanded for additional medical opinion and vocational hypothetical defects.
  • On remand the ALJ found Biestek disabled beginning May 4, 2013 (his 50th birthday, when he is “closely approaching advanced age”) but not disabled for the earlier period; Biestek appealed that limited denial.
  • Medical record: history of degenerative disc disease, intermittent back pain, mixed MRI reports showing only mild-to-moderate degenerative changes and inconsistent objective findings (e.g., straight‑leg raise, motor/sensory deficits); various treatments produced some symptom relief.
  • Conflicting medical opinions: agency expert Dr. Frank Barnes testified Biestek did not meet/listing and could perform limited sedentary work; treating/retained physicians (Drs. Howard Wright and Alexander Ghanayem) concluded more restrictive limitations or that listing was equaled.
  • ALJ gave great weight to Dr. Barnes, little or minimal weight to Drs. Ghanayem and Wright (discounting Wright’s July 2015 form because he had not treated Biestek for two years), limited Biestek to sedentary work with accommodations, and relied on a vocational expert (VE) to identify jobs; Biestek challenged credibility findings, opinion weighing, VE evidence, and listing equivalence.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether Biestek met or medically equaled Listing 1.04(A) (spine) Biestek: intermittent findings across time satisfy duration and equivalence requirements Commissioner: equivalence requires severity and duration; record shows sporadic signs and only mild‑to‑moderate imaging ALJ decision affirmed: substantial evidence supports finding he did not meet/equal the listing
Weight given to medical opinions (Drs. Wright, Ghanayem, Barnes) Biestek: ALJ improperly discounted treating and retained opinions in favor of agency expert Commissioner: ALJ reasonably credited Barnes as consistent with objective record; gave good reasons to discount others Affirmed: ALJ permissibly weighed competing opinions and provided adequate rationale
Credibility of Biestek’s symptom statements Biestek: ALJ overstated treatment efficacy, mischaracterized activities, and penalized him for post‑onset evidence Commissioner: treatments provided relative relief, activities and non‑compliance undermine credibility, post‑onset evidence is relevant Affirmed: credibility findings supported by substantial evidence and properly considered record as whole
Requirement that VE produce underlying data/analysis Biestek: VE must produce supporting data so testimony is substantially supported (advocates Seventh Circuit rule) Commissioner: VE testimony based on DOT and experience is permissible; No Sixth Circuit requirement to produce underlying data Affirmed: ALJ not required to compel VE’s underlying proprietary data; VE testimony properly weighed as substantial evidence

Key Cases Cited

  • Wright‑Hines v. Commissioner of Social Security, 597 F.3d 392 (6th Cir.) (standard of review — substantial evidence)
  • Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (U.S.) (definition of substantial evidence)
  • Walters v. Commissioner of Social Security, 127 F.3d 525 (6th Cir.) (credibility determinations entitled to deference)
  • Wilson v. Commissioner of Social Security, 378 F.3d 541 (6th Cir.) (treating‑physician rule and "good reasons" requirement)
  • Kornecky v. Commissioner of Social Security, [citation="167 F. App'x 496"] (6th Cir.) (no remand required where ALJ’s reasoning adequate)
  • Donahue v. Barnhart, 279 F.3d 441 (7th Cir.) (requiring VE to disclose data — Seventh Circuit approach)
  • McKinnie v. Barnhart, 368 F.3d 907 (7th Cir.) (same line on VE evidence)
  • Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir.) (VE testimony based on expertise and DOT is a permissible foundation)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Biestek v. Commissioner of Social Security
Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Date Published: Dec 27, 2017
Citation: 880 F.3d 778
Docket Number: 17-1459
Court Abbreviation: 6th Cir.