Bradley v. Colvin
3:16-cv-01478
D. Conn.
Aug 3, 2017

Background

  • Plaintiff Scott Bradley, 36, claims disability from mental impairments (pervasive developmental disorder, anxiety, ADHD, autism, mild depression) with alleged onset Oct 20, 2009; last substantial work in 2007.
  • SSA denied benefits; ALJ held hearings (Dec 2014, Mar 2015) with plaintiff, sister, and vocational expert (VE).
  • ALJ found several severe impairments and an RFC: full range of exertional work but non‑exertional limits (simple, repetitive tasks; avoid public; occasional coworker/supervisor interaction; can stay on task >90% of workday; frequent use of upper extremities).
  • VE identified three jobs (cleaner/housekeeper, laundry folder, warehouse worker) and testified as to national job numbers and off‑task thresholds (testified jobs require off‑task no more than ~7.5% of day).
  • Appeals Council denied review; district court reviewed and remanded, finding multiple legal errors and insufficiencies in the ALJ’s analysis and findings.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether jobs exist given RFC off‑task finding Bradley: ALJ RFC says ">90%" on‑task but VE required ~92.5% (≤7.5% off‑task) for identified jobs; discrepancy defeats step‑5 finding Berryhill: ALJ not bound to VE’s 92.5% cutoff; can credit VE and RFC together Court: Error — ALJ relied on VE yet adopted an RFC that could allow ≥10% off‑task; remand to clarify RFC and step‑5 consistency
Reliability/adequacy of VE testimony and methodology Bradley: VE’s national numbers implausible; ALJ should have probed methodology further Berryhill: VE identified standard sources and had relevant credentials; ALJ reasonably credited testimony Court: ALJ adequately inquired about sources; crediting VE was permissible under precedent
Treating‑physician rule and co‑signed non‑physician opinions Bradley: ALJ should have given controlling weight to opinions by McColl and Lowe co‑signed by Dr. Riordan Berryhill: Dr. Riordan did not have treating relationship; co‑signatures insufficient for controlling weight Court: No treating‑physician error because record doesn’t show Riordan treated patient regularly; but ALJ should have explicitly considered whether co‑signed opinions qualify as "acceptable medical source" on remand
Use and timing of GAF scores Bradley: ALJ misread records and relied on post‑Dec‑2013 GAF scores that were not newly assessed Berryhill: ALJ gave only some weight and noted GAF limits Court: ALJ misread timing; cannot use nonexistent post‑2013 GAFs to show improvement; may still give limited weight to GAFs after correction
ALJ’s use of claimant demeanor and substitution of medical judgment Bradley: ALJ impermissibly "played doctor" and relied on plaintiff’s calm hearing demeanor to discount symptoms Berryhill: ALJ may consider medical evidence and, in limited fashion, hearing observations Court: ALJ did not impermissibly play doctor but erred in giving weight to hearing demeanor here because symptoms are situational; on remand ALJ should avoid using demeanor unless explicitly relevant
Finding plaintiff can frequently use upper extremities Bradley: Medical/testimonial evidence shows repetitive motor problems; ALJ’s "frequent" finding unsupported Berryhill: Examinations showed extremities within normal limits; VE input supports jobs Court: Finding supported by substantial evidence; ALJ considered motor testimony and exams; omission of one testimony snippet not reversible error

Key Cases Cited

  • Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117 (2d Cir.) (standard for setting aside Commissioner’s factual findings)
  • Lesterhuis v. Colvin, 805 F.3d 83 (2d Cir.) (definition of substantial evidence)
  • Selian v. Astrue, 708 F.3d 409 (2d Cir.) (RFC definition and ALJ duties)
  • McIntyre v. Colvin, 758 F.3d 146 (2d Cir.) (VE testimony reliance and hypothetical requirements)
  • Brault v. Social Security Admin., Commissioner, 683 F.3d 443 (2d Cir.) (ALJ’s obligation to consider VE testimony and record support)
  • Aubeuf v. Schweiker, 649 F.2d 107 (2d Cir.) (limits on credibility findings based on claimant’s hearing demeanor)
  • Mongeur v. Heckler, 722 F.2d 1033 (2d Cir.) (treating‑physician relationship definition)
  • Shaw v. Chater, 221 F.3d 126 (2d Cir.) (treating physician rule described)
  • Petrie v. Astrue, [citation="412 F. App'x 401"] (2d Cir.) (treating‑source weight where examining/treatment contact minimal)
  • Camille v. Colvin, [citation="652 F. App'x 25"] (2d Cir.) (permissible limited use of GAF scores)
Read the full case