125 F. Supp. 3d 349
D. Mass.2015Background
- Plaintiff Richard Britt applied for SSDI alleging onset January 1, 2009; his date last insured was December 13, 2010. The ALJ and Appeals Council denied benefits, and Britt sought judicial review.
- Medical record through December 13, 2010 showed diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, prior CABG, intermittent left‑hip/leg complaints from a 2009 strain, but generally objective findings were not disabling before the DLI.
- Post‑DLI records (2011–2012) documented progressive left hip degeneration after a 2011 slip and culminating in total left hip replacement in 2012 with good post‑op recovery and improved function.
- Two state agency physicians (2011) rated Britt able to perform medium work with some environmental and postural restrictions; the ALJ adopted a reduced RFC to light work and added restrictions (no foot/leg controls, no dangerous machinery, no heights/ladders/ropes/scaffolds).
- Vocational expert testified the RFC permitted Britt’s past relevant work (construction supervisor). The ALJ found Britt not disabled through the date last insured and denied benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the RFC failed to account for additional physical limitations (esp. degenerative left hip) | Britt: post‑DLI records show degenerative hip requiring replacement; ALJ/RFC should have limited exertion more and accounted for hip degeneration before DLI | Commissioner: RFC is supported by pre‑DLI records, state‑agency opinions, and ALJ reasonably considered post‑DLI evidence and nonetheless limited RFC to light work with extra restrictions | Court: RFC supported by substantial evidence; ALJ considered medical record (pre‑ and post‑DLI), reduced exertion to light work and added restrictions, so no remand. |
| Whether ALJ failed to consider combined effect of impairments | Britt: ALJ did not adequately evaluate combined impact of diabetes, cardiac disease, hip degeneration, neuropathy | Commissioner: State reviewers and ALJ considered impairments individually and in combination when assessing RFC | Court: ALJ and state physicians considered combined impairments; record supports RFC as to combined effects. |
| Whether ALJ erred by not calling a medical advisor under SSR 83‑20 to infer onset | Britt: medical progression suggests disabling condition began before DLI; ALJ should have obtained medical expert to infer earlier onset | Commissioner: ALJ found claimant not disabled during insured period so SSR 83‑20 and a medical advisor were not required | Court: SSR 83‑20 applies only when ALJ first finds disability before DLI; here ALJ found no disability during insured period and record unambiguously showed non‑disabling status pre‑DLI, so no medical advisor required. |
| Whether ALJ’s credibility and evidentiary weight determinations were lawful | Britt: challenges ALJ’s treatment of symptoms and medical evidence | Commissioner: ALJ reasonably resolved conflicts and credited medical evidence and activities of daily living | Court: ALJ’s credibility and evidentiary findings are supported by inconsistencies in testimony and objective record; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodermote v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 690 F.2d 5 (1st Cir. 1982) (describes the five‑step disability evaluation sequence)
- Rodriguez v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 647 F.2d 218 (1st Cir. 1981) (substantial‑evidence standard explained)
- Evangelista v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 826 F.2d 136 (1st Cir. 1987) (court deference to ALJ factfinding and credibility assessments)
- Ortiz v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 955 F.2d 765 (1st Cir. 1991) (ALJ province to weigh evidence and resolve conflicts)
- Freeman v. Barnhart, 274 F.3d 606 (1st Cir. 2001) (burden shifts to Commissioner at step five; RFC/vocational factors required)
- Manso‑Pizarro v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 76 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 1996) (standards for reversal where record lacks rational evidentiary support)