Black v. Commissioner of Social Security
3:16-cv-02918
N.D. OhioDec 20, 2017Background
- Kenneth W. Black applied for DIB and SSI with an alleged onset date of Feb 24, 2014; the ALJ denied benefits and the Appeals Council declined review, making the ALJ’s decision final.
- Diagnoses/reported impairments included cervical degenerative changes with radiculopathy, obesity, depressive disorder, and borderline intellectual functioning; MRI showed mild osteophyte bulges at C5–C6 and treatment was largely conservative (PT, steroid injection, non‑narcotic meds).
- Psychological testing: a 1983 WISC full‑scale IQ 84; a 2014 WAIS by consultative examiner Dr. Shamberg showing full‑scale IQ 66 and substantial workplace limitations.
- State agency reviewers (physical and mental) found less restrictive RFCs than Dr. Shamberg, recommending light work with some postural/upper‑extremity limits and simplified, supervised tasks.
- At hearing Black testified to severe pain, marked right‑arm limitations (claiming a 1‑pound lifting limit), limited activities, ongoing online college coursework, and treatment for depression; VE identified several light unskilled jobs consistent with the ALJ’s RFC but testified that greater cognitive/attendance limits would preclude all work.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ALJ’s treatment of consultative psychologist Dr. Shamberg’s opinion (IQ 66; marked workplace limits) | ALJ improperly rejected Shamberg and substituted his own view when discounting the WAIS score and limitations | ALJ reasonably weighed Shamberg as a one‑time examiner, explained inconsistency between 2014 WAIS and 1983 WISC and Black’s functioning (HS grad, college courses, independent finances), and relied on state reviewers | Court: No error — ALJ permissibly resolved conflicting evidence and gave valid reasons for discounting some of Shamberg’s extreme limitations |
| Weight given to state‑agency reviewers and alleged inconsistency between first and second reviewers | ALJ erred by giving more deference to second reviewers over initial reviewers | ALJ explained differences (second reviewers’ opinions were not less restrictive and post‑date some records); RFC incorporates limiting aspects of both reviewers and additional limits | Court: No error — ALJ’s assignment of weight was supported and RFC accounted for relevant restrictions |
| Credibility/consistency of Black’s subjective symptom testimony (e.g., 1‑pound lifting limit, hairline fracture) | ALJ improperly discounted Black’s testimony contrary to diagnoses | ALJ relied on objective evidence (mild MRI findings, largely normal exams), conservative effective treatment, inconsistent statements, and daily activities as reasons to discount extremity of allegations | Court: No error — ALJ provided adequate reasons supported by record to discount exaggerated symptom claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137 (statutory standard for disability evaluation)
- Walters v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 127 F.3d 525 (allocation of burdens in sequential evaluation)
- Besaw v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 966 F.2d 1028 (definition of substantial evidence)
- Brainard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 889 F.2d 679 (substantial‑evidence standard)
- Garner v. Heckler, 745 F.2d 383 (ALJ role in resolving conflicts and credibility assessments)
- Courter v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 479 F. App’x 713 (upholding ALJ’s reliance on expert opinion to challenge low IQ score)
- McPherson v. Kelsey, 125 F.3d 989 (issues not developed are waived)
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (procedural rule re: objections to magistrate reports)
- United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (procedural waiver principle referenced re: objections)