Bilotta v. Saul
5:18-cv-00121
| W.D.N.C. | Jun 25, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Antonio Bilotta sought disability benefits, alleging disabling knee problems and limited literacy; ALJ denied benefits, finding he could perform a reduced range of medium work through his date last insured (Dec. 31, 2010).
- ALJ limited him to only occasional kneeling, crouching, crawling, or climbing ladders/ropes/scaffolds and found a marginal education (not illiterate).
- A vocational expert (V.E.) testified that Bilotta could not return to past work but could work as cleaner II, dining room attendant, or laundry laborer; V.E. stated her testimony was consistent with the DOT and that those jobs could be done without reading/writing English.
- Medical evidence included prior meniscal tear and cyst, postoperative intermittent conservative treatment, consultative exam showing mild-to-moderate limitations but normal gait and ability to walk 100 feet, and state agency reviewers endorsing a reduced medium RFC.
- Plaintiff challenged the RFC assessment, the ALJ’s finding on literacy, and argued the ALJ failed to resolve an apparent conflict between the V.E.’s testimony and the DOT; the magistrate judge recommended affirming the Commissioner.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| RFC adequacy | ALJ failed to assess function-by-function and understated limitations from knee and obesity | ALJ reasonably assessed limitations, supported by medical record and state-agency opinions; claimant bears burden to show functional limits | RFC supported by substantial evidence; no additional limitations required |
| Obesity consideration | Obesity worsened functional capacity and wasn't properly addressed | No evidence showing obesity caused functional limitations; ALJ not required to speculate | ALJ was not required to make assumptions without evidence; no error |
| Literacy / education level | ALJ mischaracterized claimant as marginally educated rather than illiterate, affecting Step Five | ALJ relied on claimant’s own statements and record; even if some evidence suggested illiteracy, error harmless because V.E. identified jobs not requiring reading/writing | ALJ’s finding of marginal education supported by record; any error harmless because cited jobs can be done without English literacy |
| Conflict between V.E. and DOT | Apparent conflict: DOT lists GED reasoning/read levels inconsistent with claimed illiteracy; ALJ failed to resolve conflict per Pearson | ALJ asked V.E. about reading/writing requirement; V.E. explained jobs could be done without English literacy and testimony consistent with DOT | No unresolved conflict; ALJ properly elicited explanation and permissibly relied on V.E.'s testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (establishes substantial-evidence standard for administrative decisions)
- Mascio v. Colvin, 780 F.3d 632 (4th Cir. 2015) (remand appropriate where ALJ fails required function-by-function RFC analysis or leaves unresolved conflicts)
- Pearson v. Colvin, 810 F.3d 204 (4th Cir. 2015) (ALJ must identify and resolve conflicts between V.E. testimony and DOT; cannot rely on bare assurance)
- Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148 (clarifies that substantial-evidence threshold is modest)
- Seacrist v. Weinberger, 538 F.2d 1054 (4th Cir. 1976) (responsibility to reconcile medical inconsistencies rests with ALJ)
- Mickles v. Shalala, 29 F.3d 918 (4th Cir. 1994) (where evidence conflicts, ALJ decides disability question)