Bonnilyn Mascio v. Carolyn Colvin
780 F.3d 632
| 4th Cir. | 2015Background
- Bonnilyn Mascio applied for Supplemental Security Income claiming disability from degenerative disc disease, carpal tunnel syndrome, and adjustment disorder; SSA denied benefits for the period March 15, 2005–November 30, 2009.
- Two ALJ hearings occurred; the second ALJ found four severe impairments, concluded Mascio could perform a restricted range of light, unskilled work (including a sit/stand option and frequent fingering), and denied benefits at step five.
- The ALJ found moderate limitations in Mascio’s concentration, persistence, or pace at step three but did not include corresponding restrictions in the RFC or the vocational expert hypothetical.
- The record contained conflicting state-agency RFC opinions and evidence about medication side effects (daytime fatigue) and credibility issues (conviction for selling prescription medication; lying about marijuana use).
- Mascio appealed, arguing the ALJ erred by failing to perform a function-by-function RFC analysis, omitting her concentration/persistence/pace limitation from the vocational hypothetical, assessing RFC before credibility, and failing to apply a supposed “great weight” rule to her pain testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Function-by-function RFC analysis required? | ALJ failed to assess limitations on each work-related function as SSR 96-8p requires. | Remand unnecessary because step four finding (could not perform past work) makes the omission harmless. | Remand required: ALJ must perform/clarify function-by-function analysis where record conflicts and analysis is not reviewable. |
| 2. Omission of concentration/persistence/pace in VE hypothetical | ALJ omitted moderate C/P/P limitation from hypothetical despite finding it at step three. | C/P/P limitation need not be included because claimant’s medication side effects and credibility were discounted. | Remand required: ALJ must explain why step-three moderate limitation does or does not translate into an RFC limitation; simple/unskilled restriction is insufficient to capture C/P/P limits. |
| 3. RFC assessed before credibility determination | ALJ used boilerplate stating symptoms were not credible "to the extent inconsistent with the above RFC," effectively assessing RFC first. | Boilerplate harmless because ALJ gave specific credibility reasons elsewhere. | Error and not harmless: ALJ must evaluate credibility as part of RFC analysis and explain which testimony was credited and why. |
| 4. "Great weight" rule for pain testimony | ALJ should give "great weight" to uncontradicted/supporting subjective pain evidence. | No such per se rule; ALJ must consider all evidence and substantial-evidence review governs. | Court rejects a per se great-weight rule; declines to adopt it. |
Key Cases Cited
- Korotynska v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 474 F.3d 101 (4th Cir.) (standard of de novo review for judgment on the pleadings)
- Bird v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 699 F.3d 337 (4th Cir.) (affirm where correct legal standards applied and findings supported by substantial evidence)
- Cichocki v. Astrue, 729 F.3d 172 (2d Cir.) (no per se remand rule for missing function-by-function analysis; remand when meaningful review frustrated)
- Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir.) (limitations in concentration, persistence, or pace are not adequately captured by limiting to simple, routine tasks)
- Bjornson v. Astrue, 671 F.3d 640 (7th Cir.) (critique of boilerplate credibility language)
- Combs v. Weinberger, 501 F.2d 1361 (4th Cir.) (recognition that subjective evidence may be entitled to great weight)