Bisceglia v. Colvin
173 F. Supp. 3d 326
E.D. Va.2016Background
- Plaintiff Gina Bisceglia applied for DIB and SSI in December 2011 alleging multiple impairments (including liver disease, hepatitis C, anemia, foot/tendonitis problems) with an onset date of March 15, 2010.
- SSA denied benefits initially and on reconsideration; an ALJ held a hearing (Apr. 3, 2014) and denied benefits (June 27, 2014); Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ decision final.
- ALJ found severe impairments but concluded Plaintiff could perform "less than the full range of light work": sit 7 hours/day, stand/walk 2 hours/day, occasional posturals; could not perform past work but could perform other jobs per VE testimony.
- State-agency physicians (Drs. Amos and Darden) opined Plaintiff’s maximum sustained capacity was sedentary; ALJ claimed to give these opinions "significant weight" but described them as supporting light work.
- Plaintiff challenged the RFC and ALJ’s use of the Medical-Vocational Guidelines (the Grid), arguing inconsistency with the state doctors’ sedentary findings and SSA policy (POMS/POMS DI cited).
- Magistrate Judge Novak recommended granting Plaintiff summary judgment, vacating and remanding the Commissioner’s decision; District Judge Spencer adopted the recommendation and ordered remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ’s RFC conflicted with state agency opinions | ALJ gave "significant weight" to state doctors who found sedentary capacity but nevertheless adopted a light-work RFC — inconsistency requires explanation/remand | ALJ adopted the substance of agency opinions ("meat") and any error was harmless because RFC for "less than full range of light work" is supported | Court: ALJ erred; failed to reconcile and explain discrepancy; error not harmless; remand required |
| Whether ALJ properly applied the Grid rules (light v. sedentary) | Two-hour standing/walking limit places claimant between sedentary and light; because Grid outcome differs by classification, ALJ had to justify choosing light-grid framework or consult VE more clearly | ALJ permissibly used light-work Grid as framework and relied on record/VE to address erosions of occupational base | Court: ALJ failed to explain why light-grid rather than sedentary-grid applied; remand required for clarification/development |
| Whether VE testimony was reliable given RFC error | VE testimony may be unreliable because hypotheticals may not have captured all impairments due to RFC errors | ALJ properly consulted VE per regulations; VE testimony supports step-five conclusion | Court: Because RFC is inadequately explained, VE reliance cannot be evaluated; remand required |
| Whether remand or award of benefits is appropriate | Plaintiff sought benefits, arguing reduced capacity dictates disability under Grid | Defendant argued remand unnecessary if error harmless and record supports RFC | Court: Remand (not immediate award) appropriate to allow ALJ/agency to clarify and develop record |
Key Cases Cited
- Mascio v. Colvin, 780 F.3d 632 (4th Cir. 2015) (RFC must be assessed on a function-by-function basis and include narrative explanation tying evidence to conclusions)
- Radford v. Colvin, 734 F.3d 288 (4th Cir. 2013) (ALJ must provide a record of the basis for rulings to permit substantial-evidence review)
- Hancock v. Astrue, 667 F.3d 470 (4th Cir. 2012) (courts will not reweigh evidence; substantial evidence standard explained)
- Coffman v. Bowen, 829 F.2d 514 (4th Cir. 1987) (discusses use of Grid rules to meet Commissioner’s burden at step five)
- Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U.S. 458 (U.S. 1983) (endorsement of Medical-Vocational Guidelines as a means to determine disability)
- Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396 (U.S. 2009) (party attacking agency determination bears burden to show error was harmful)