Bostic v. Commissioner of Social Security, 3:20-cv-00101

Background

Fonda Bostic filed applications for SSDI and SSI (alleged onset 9/13/2013); Appeals Council denied relief and this action followed. A prior application had been denied and affirmed by the court.
The ALJ found severe impairments (lumbar degenerative disc disease, fibromyalgia, diabetes, obesity, major depression, anxiety, PTSD, borderline intellectual functioning) and adopted an RFC (through 7/30/2018) for a reduced range of light work: standing/walking 4 hours, sitting 6 hours, no ladders/ropes/scaffolds, occasional ramps/stairs and postural moves, simple/ routine/ repetitive tasks, no fast production pace or strict quotas, and work not requiring more than a 3rd-grade reading level.
Vocational expert testimony supported availability of light, unskilled jobs (housekeeper, laundry worker, inspector/hand packager); ALJ concluded jobs existed in significant numbers and denied benefits.
Treating psychiatrist Dr. Smith (treating since 2014) completed a 4/5/2018 impairment questionnaire finding marked deficits: poor memory, impaired concentration, inability to follow through, intolerance of stress, would miss >3 workdays/month and be off-task two-thirds of the time; he attributed impairment in part to interaction of chronic pain and mental conditions.
The ALJ discounted Dr. Smith’s opinion because she found it lacked a function-by-function analysis supported by objective findings, noted some clinical improvement, and said a psychiatrist should not assess physical impairments; she did not specify the weight given to his opinion or fully apply the treating-source two-step analysis.
The magistrate judge held the ALJ committed reversible legal/procedural errors in evaluating the treating opinion (failed to determine controlling-weight step and to consider required factors; did not adequately explain RFC accommodations) and remanded the case to the Commissioner under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), sentence four.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the ALJ properly applied the treating-source two-step and gave appropriate weight to Dr. Smith’s opinion	Bostic: ALJ failed to determine whether Dr. Smith’s opinion was supported by medically acceptable techniques and consistent with record before discounting it; thus she conflated steps and gave inadequate reasons	Commissioner: ALJ permissibly found the opinion unsupported by objective findings, noted improvement, and relied on state agency reviewers; she reasonably limited the opinion	Court: ALJ erred procedurally by not performing the controlling-weight inquiry and failing to consider required factors or state the weight given; remand required
Whether the ALJ adequately explained how RFC limitations accommodated memory/concentration deficits	Bostic: ALJ’s conclusion that simple tasks/no production quotas would address memory deficits was unsupported and unexplained	Commissioner: RFC accommodated mental limits by restricting tasks and pace (no fast production/quota)	Court: ALJ did not tie RFC accommodations to evidence or an opinion showing they would suffice; explanation inadequate
Whether the ALJ permissibly discounted Dr. Smith for relying on Plaintiff’s chronic pain	Bostic: Psychiatrist may account for pain’s psychological effects; Dr. Smith properly considered interaction of pain and depression	Commissioner: Dr. Smith treated only mental conditions and improperly factored physical impairments without objective support	Court: ALJ provided no support for the proposition that Dr. Smith could not account for pain’s psychological impact; discounting on that ground was inadequately explained
Remedy: Whether remand or affirmance is appropriate	Bostic: Errors in legal analysis require remand for proper weighing and explanation	Commissioner: The record otherwise supports ALJ’s RFC and denial	Court: Because of legal/procedural errors in treating-opinion analysis and unexplained RFC findings, remand for further proceedings ordered

Key Cases Cited

Blakley v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399 (6th Cir. 2009) (standards for substantial-evidence review of ALJ findings)
Bowen v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 478 F.3d 742 (6th Cir. 2007) (appellate review may reverse for legal error despite substantial evidence)
Gentry v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 741 F.3d 708 (6th Cir. 2014) (scope of substantial-evidence review)
Rogers v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234 (6th Cir. 2007) (substantial-evidence standard and record evaluation)
Warner v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 375 F.3d 387 (6th Cir. 2004) (defining substantial evidence as "more than a scintilla")
Rabbers v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 582 F.3d 647 (6th Cir. 2009) (procedural errors in applying regulations can warrant reversal)
Wilson v. Comm'r of Social Security, 378 F.3d 541 (6th Cir. 2004) (ALJ must give a reasoned explanation when rejecting a treating-physician opinion)
Moon v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1175 (6th Cir. 1990) (ALJ may consider whether treating opinion is supported by objective findings)
Loy v. Secretary of HHS, 901 F.2d 1306 (6th Cir. 1990) (treating-source opinions entitled to greater weight but subject to evaluation against record)
Cutlip v. Secretary of H.H.S., 25 F.3d 284 (6th Cir. 1994) (ALJ may consider claimant’s daily activities and other evidence when weighing opinions)
Lashley v. Secretary of H.H.S., 708 F.2d 1048 (6th Cir. 1983) (treating physician opinions ordinarily entitled to substantial weight)
Estes v. Harris, 512 F. Supp. 1106 (S.D. Ohio 1981) (discussing weight of treating physician opinions)