Brothers v. Commissioner of Social Security, 5:16-cv-01942

Background

Plaintiff Andrew W. Brothers received childhood SSI but, upon turning 18, had his benefits redetermined and was found no longer disabled as of September 1, 2009; ALJ issued an unfavorable decision on December 5, 2014 and Appeals Council denied review.
Medical history: congenital lumbar stenosis with large L4-5 and L5-S1 herniations, two lumbar surgeries in 2012 (laminectomy/partial discectomy and L5-S1 fusion), ongoing back pain, and seizure disorder; claimant also has bipolar disorder and borderline intellectual functioning.
Treatment records show continued narcotic prescriptions, multiple ER visits for back pain, physical therapy with poor attendance, and reports of drug-seeking behavior and obtaining opioids from multiple providers.
At the October 23, 2014 hearing claimant testified to persistent pain, limited standing/walking/sitting tolerance, seizures, and functional activities of daily living that included household tasks; a vocational expert identified several light, unskilled jobs consistent with the ALJ’s residual functional capacity (RFC).
ALJ’s RFC: limited to light work with no ladders/ropes/scaffolds, only occasional ramps/stairs/balance/stoop/kneel/crouch/crawl, limited environmental exposures, simple unskilled routine tasks, limited decision-making, and only occasional interaction with others.
ALJ discounted portions of claimant’s symptom testimony based on inconsistent statements, evidence of drug-seeking behavior, multiple opioid prescriptions from different providers, continued attempts at heavy labor, and other record inconsistencies; Magistrate Judge Ruiz recommended affirming the Commissioner.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether SSR 16-3p should be applied retroactively to evaluate claimant’s symptom testimony	Brothers urged retroactive application of SSR 16-3p (which replaced SSR 96-7p) to require a different credibility analysis	Commissioner argued courts should apply the rules in effect when the ALJ decided the case (SSR 96-7p) and that ALJ's analysis is proper under either ruling	Court declined to apply SSR 16-3p retroactively (in an abundance of caution) and reviewed under SSR 96-7p; found outcome would be same under either rule
Whether the ALJ improperly discredited claimant’s pain and symptom testimony	Brothers argued the ALJ erred in using credibility findings to deny his claimed pain limitations	Commissioner defended ALJ’s credibility determination as supported by record (inconsistent statements, drug-seeking behavior, treatment gaps, activities)	Court held ALJ’s credibility findings were reasonable, supported by substantial evidence, and permissibly considered drug-seeking and inconsistencies
Whether the ALJ failed to follow the two-step symptom evaluation required by SSA rulings	Brothers contended ALJ diminished credibility at step one, undermining proper analysis	Commissioner maintained ALJ found medically determinable impairments and proceeded to evaluate intensity/limiting effects per the two-step process	Court found ALJ satisfied the two-step analysis and provided specific, supported reasons for discounting symptom testimony
Whether the RFC and step-five finding are supported given the credibility and medical evidence	Brothers argued that improperly discredited testimony and treating opinions (e.g., Dr. Thomas/Parulkar) undermine RFC and jobs identified	Commissioner argued the RFC incorporated medically supported limitations and VE testimony established jobs exist	Court concluded RFC was supported by objective findings and opinion evidence as weighed; VE testimony supported availability of jobs — affirmed Commissioner

Key Cases Cited

Kirk v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 667 F.2d 524 (6th Cir.) (defines disability standard for SSI applications)
Abbott v. Sullivan, 905 F.2d 918 (6th Cir. 1990) (explains five-step sequential evaluation for disability)
Heston v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 245 F.3d 528 (6th Cir. 2001) (review standard: consider record as whole)
Brainard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 889 F.2d 679 (6th Cir. 1989) (substantial evidence standard)
Ealy v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 594 F.3d 504 (6th Cir. 2010) (administrative findings must be supported by substantial evidence)
White v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 572 F.3d 272 (6th Cir. 2009) (deference to Commissioner if supported by substantial evidence)
Jones v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 336 F.3d 469 (6th Cir. 2003) (ALJ may consider claimant credibility when assessing disability)
Rogers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234 (6th Cir. 2007) (credibility determinations must be reasoned and supported)
Siterlet v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 823 F.2d 918 (6th Cir.) (credibility on pain rests with ALJ)
Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204 (1988) (retroactivity of administrative rules disfavored)
Cruse v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 502 F.3d 532 (6th Cir. 2007) (agency not required to apply new policy interpretations retroactively)