Broyles v. Barnhart
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178623
| D.D.C. | 2012Background
- Broyles, 58, seeks SSDI benefits for January 2001 through June 4, 2002; ALJ denied benefits in 2003.
- Medical history includes fibromyalgia, affective and anxiety disorders, learning disability, and possible depression.
- DDS found physical limitations (20 pounds occasionally, 10 pounds frequently) with light to moderate capacity; psychological findings noted but not conclusively disabling.
- Treating psychiatrist Dr. Tankeh opined significant impairments and disability, potentially meeting listing 12.04, but the ALJ discounted these conclusions.
- A vocational expert testified that, given Broyles’ age, education, and residual capacity, several light-work occupations were available in the economy.
- The Appeals Council denied review; Broyles challenged the ALJ’s step-3 determination, treatment of medical opinions, reliance on VE, and RFC assessment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Step 3: whether Broyles meets listing 12.04 | Tankeh's findings show 12.04 met; ALJ failed to evaluate | ALJ properly evaluated and found no listing met; Tankeh's opinion is conclusory | ALJ did not err; Tankeh's conclusory opinion rejected and evidence supported non-listing |
| Weight given to treating physician Tankeh | Tankeh's opinion should be given substantial weight toward disability | Tankeh's statements were conclusory and inconsistent with record | ALJ properly discounted treating-source conclusory findings |
| Use of vocational expert at Step Five | VE testimony may be unreliable or not adequately aligned with limitations | VE testimony is permissible and consistent with DOT and record | VE testimony properly used to support availability of jobs |
| Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) assessment | ALJ failed to provide function-by-function narrative for non-exertional limits | RFC supported by state agency and medical evidence; narrative adequate | ALJ's RFC analysis sufficiently explained and supported |
Key Cases Cited
- Dunham v. Astrue, 603 F. Supp. 2d 13 (D.D.C. 2009) (five-step framework and burden shifting for disability review)
- Butler v. Barnhart, 353 F.3d 992 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (substantial evidence standard and judicial review limitations)
- Brown v. Bowen, 794 F.2d 703 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (substantial evidence review and administrative findings)
- Crawford v. Barnhart, 556 F. Supp. 2d 49 (D.D.C. 2008) (need to explain rejection of treating opinions; functional capacity discussion)
- Pinkney v. Astrue, 675 F. Supp. 2d 9 (D.D.C. 2009) (brief, conclusory treating opinions may be rejected)
- Grant v. Astrue, 857 F. Supp. 2d 146 (D.D.C. 2012) (regarding explaining rejection of medical opinions)
- Turner v. Astrue, 710 F. Supp. 2d 95 (D.D.C. 2010) (VE testimony and DOT consistency in step-five analysis)
- Banks v. Astrue, 537 F. Supp.2d 75 (D.D.C. 2008) (function-by-function analysis considerations under SSR 96-8p)