Blakeley v. Commissioner of Social Security
3:21-cv-00112
S.D. OhioSep 21, 2022Background
- Plaintiff filed for Disability Insurance Benefits (May 2019) and SSI (Oct 2019), alleging disability from November 6, 2018, due to degenerative disc disease.
- Diagnosed impairments: degenerative disc disease (cervical and lumbar), degenerative joint disease of the shoulders, and migraine headaches.
- Surgical history: C5–C7 anterior cervical decompression and fusion (April 2019); L3–L4 and L4–L5 decompressive laminectomy with facetectomies/foraminotomies (Oct 2019).
- ALJ found Plaintiff unable to perform past relevant work but assigned an RFC for light work with non‑exertional limits (no overhead reaching; limited climbing; occasional stooping; moderate noise/light avoidance) and concluded jobs exist at step five; claim denied.
- Plaintiff challenged the RFC and symptom evaluation (particularly post‑operative back limitations and dizziness/falls); the Magistrate Judge reviewed the record and affirmed the Commissioner, finding substantial evidence supported the RFC and any ALJ omission about dizziness was harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ’s RFC finding (capable of full‑time light work) is supported | RFC inconsistent with MRIs, surgeries, persistent post‑op pain, and claimant testimony about needing to recline | RFC supported by state‑examining physicians, post‑op records showing improvement, and physician findings of normal strength/gait | ALJ's RFC supported by substantial evidence; affirmed |
| Whether ALJ properly accounted for post‑operative back limitations | Surgeries and ongoing complaints require greater, possibly durable, limitations | Many post‑op restrictions were temporary; state reviewers’ exertional limits were reasonable and ALJ added non‑exertional limits | ALJ reasonably weighed opinions and records, included appropriate limits, and relied on substantial evidence |
| Whether ALJ erred by not addressing dizziness/falls and related limitations | Dizziness/blackouts and falls (testimony and notes) warrant functional limits and consideration | No diagnosis or medical opinion linking dizziness to functional limitations; no 12‑month duration; ALJ need not cite every piece of evidence | Any failure to discuss dizziness was harmless; no medical source imposed functional limits and no chronic diagnosis/duration shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U.S. 467 (1986) (defines statutory concept of disability under the Social Security Act)
- Blakley v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399 (6th Cir. 2009) (standard that courts defer to ALJ where substantial evidence supports decision)
- Rabbers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 582 F.3d 647 (6th Cir. 2009) (procedural errors by ALJ can require reversal even if supported by substantial evidence)
- Gentry v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 741 F.3d 708 (6th Cir. 2014) (defines substantial evidence standard)
- Rogers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234 (6th Cir. 2007) (substantial‑evidence review principles)
- Wilson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541 (6th Cir. 2004) (ALJ must follow SSA regulations and provide reasoned analysis)
- Casey v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 987 F.2d 1230 (6th Cir. 1993) (ALJ includes in RFC only limitations found credible and supported)