Blevins v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, 2:16-cv-00530

Plaintiff Steven Blevins applied for SSI and DIB claiming disability from back problems with an amended onset date of June 3, 2013; application denied and ALJ issued an adverse decision on October 20, 2015; Appeals Council denied review.
Medical history: lumbar disc herniation and radiculopathy with MRI showing an L4 fragment; conservative treatment, epidural steroid injection, and L4–5 microdiscectomy in June 2014.
Pre‑surgery records show significant pain, antalgic gait, and functional limits; post‑surgery records show partial improvement but continuing complaints and physical‑therapy intolerance.
ALJ found severe impairments (degenerative disc disease post‑microdiscectomy; affective and anxiety disorders), assigned a single RFC for the entire period (light work with specific postural and contact limits), and relied heavily on the consultative examiner’s opinion and gaps in treatment to discount disability allegations.
VE testified claimant could not perform past very‑heavy construction work but could perform several light occupations available in state and national economy.
Magistrate Judge recommended reversing and remanding under sentence four, finding the ALJ failed to analyze whether a closed period of disability existed for the 12‑month period before surgery.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the RFC and disability finding are supported by substantial evidence	ALJ erred by assigning one RFC for entire period without separately analyzing the pre‑surgery period; may have been disabled for a closed 12‑month period before surgery	ALJ relied on consultative exam, treatment gaps, and record inconsistencies to support a single RFC for the whole period	Remanded: ALJ failed to consider a potential closed period pre‑surgery; must reassess whether claimant was disabled for any consecutive 12‑month period and provide adequate RFC support
Weight given to consultative examiner and treatment gaps	ALJ improperly credited Dr. Swedberg without resolving inconsistencies and unduly penalized claimant for gaps in care given alleged financial barriers	ALJ permissibly relied on consultative exam and treatment history (including smoking and treatment gaps) to discount symptom severity	Court did not address the merits of this point in detail because remand was required on closed‑period error; ALJ must reexamine evidence on remand

Rabbers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 582 F.3d 647 (6th Cir. 2009) (standard of review: affirm if decision is supported by substantial evidence and follows legal standards)
Rogers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234 (6th Cir. 2007) (definition and application of substantial evidence review)
Cutlip v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 25 F.3d 284 (6th Cir. 1994) (substantial evidence explained as more than a scintilla)
Blakley v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399 (6th Cir. 2009) (deference to ALJ when supported by substantial evidence, even if record could support opposite conclusion)
Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474 (U.S. 1951) (courts must consider record evidence that detracts from agency conclusions)