Brown v. Commissioner Social Security Administration
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 18856
4th Cir.2017Background
- Ricky E. Brown injured in a 2006 workplace accident and applied for disability insurance benefits; his date last insured was June 30, 2011.
- ALJ initially denied benefits (Sept. 2010). District court reversed and remanded (2012); on remand a second ALJ hearing (May 2013) produced a second denial (Feb. 2014), which became final after the Appeals Council denied review.
- ALJ found multiple severe impairments (degenerative joint/disc disease, depression, anxiety, dysthymic and somatoform disorders) but concluded Brown retained a sedentary RFC with limits (e.g., sit 6/8 hrs, stand/walk 2/8, simple 1–2 step tasks) and could perform some unskilled work.
- Treating/examining clinicians (pain specialists, primary care, psychologists) consistently opined Brown’s chronic pain and mental impairments precluded full-time work, requiring frequent unscheduled breaks and multiple absences.
- The ALJ credited the Commissioner’s nonexamining medical expert (Dr. Jonas) over treating sources, found Brown’s subjective pain testimony not fully credible, and rejected treating physicians’ opinions.
- Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded, holding the ALJ misapplied the treating-physician rule, improperly credited a nonexamining reviewer over treating sources, and failed to address certain medical opinions and the implications of a somatoform disorder.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ improperly favored a nonexamining expert over treating/examining physicians | Brown: ALJ erred by crediting Dr. Jonas (never examined Brown) and discounting treating opinions; treating-physician rule requires greater weight to treating sources unless well-supported and consistent | Commissioner: ALJ permissibly found Dr. Jonas’s record review more persuasive and consistent with objective evidence | Court held ALJ erred; improperly credited Dr. Jonas over treating/examining sources and failed to follow treating-physician rule |
| Whether ALJ’s adverse credibility finding about pain was supported | Brown: ALJ cherry-picked record, mischaracterized daily activities, and substituted lay judgments for medical opinions | Commissioner: ALJ relied on inconsistencies between claimant’s testimony, medical records, and examined diagnostic findings | Court held ALJ failed to build an accurate, logical bridge linking evidence to adverse credibility findings; credibility determination unsustained |
| Whether ALJ failed to consider and evaluate a treating/examining specialist’s opinion (Dr. McMillan) | Brown: ALJ omitted consideration of McMillan’s MRI interpretation finding lateral disc herniation anatomically explaining symptoms | Commissioner: (implicit) ALJ reasonably weighed medical evidence overall | Court held ALJ erred by not evaluating every medical opinion, including McMillan’s MRI interpretation |
| Whether ALJ accounted for somatoform disorder in RFC and pain analysis | Brown: ALJ found somatoform disorder but then discounted objective evidence and failed to consider that somatoform pain can be disabling despite minimal objective findings | Commissioner: ALJ relied on lack of objective indicators to discount severity | Court held ALJ erred by ignoring the implications of an accepted somatoform diagnosis when evaluating pain and RFC |
Key Cases Cited
- Monroe v. Colvin, 826 F.3d 176 (4th Cir. 2016) (describing five-step disability framework and RFC principles)
- Lewis v. Berryhill, 858 F.3d 858 (4th Cir. 2017) (ALJ must consider claimant’s symptoms and evaluate consistency with objective evidence)
- Bird v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 699 F.3d 337 (4th Cir. 2012) (substantial-evidence standard of review for ALJ decisions)
- Mastro v. Apfel, 270 F.3d 171 (4th Cir. 2001) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Clifford v. Apfel, 227 F.3d 863 (7th Cir. 2000) (ALJ must build logical bridge from evidence to credibility findings)
- Wilson v. Heckler, 743 F.2d 218 (4th Cir. 1984) (ALJ may not substitute lay opinion for medical judgment)
- Carradine v. Barnhart, 360 F.3d 751 (7th Cir. 2004) (sporadic activities do not establish ability to work full time)
- Larson v. Astrue, 615 F.3d 744 (7th Cir. 2010) (limitations of form-based medical opinions do not justify rejecting treating source where treatment record supports findings)