Bryant v. Social Security Administration
3:15-cv-00292
E.D. Ark.Oct 4, 2016Background
- Plaintiff Charles Bryant applied for Social Security Title II and XVI benefits claiming disability from May 25, 2012, after a motorcycle accident that fractured his left tibia/fibula and required ORIF surgery.
- ALJ found Bryant had severe impairments (status-post ORIF fractured leg, gout, diabetes) but not a listed impairment; RFC: full range of medium work.
- ALJ concluded Bryant could perform past relevant work as a warehouse worker/general laborer and alternatively found other work existed; Appeals Council denied review.
- Medical records show initial good postoperative alignment and improving ROM; removal of hardware in May 2014 with postoperative improvement and no permanent work restrictions noted by treating physicians.
- Bryant treated gout and diabetes conservatively; diabetes was controlled after initial high A1C and cataract surgery improved vision; no treating physician imposed work restrictions or prescribed a cane.
- ALJ discounted Bryant’s subjective pain complaints as inconsistent with treatment history, daily activities (living alone, driving, shopping, cooking, chores, playing keyboard), and objective exam findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ properly evaluated credibility and subjective complaints | Bryant: ALJ erred in finding his complaints less than fully credible | ALJ: credibility discount supported by inconsistencies, treatment response, and activities | Court: Credibility finding supported by substantial evidence |
| Whether RFC of medium work is supported | Bryant: subjective complaints preclude medium work | ALJ: RFC based on medical evidence, objective improvement, no restrictions from doctors | Court: RFC for full range of medium work supported |
| Whether past relevant work can be performed | Bryant: cannot perform past work due to pain and limitations | ALJ: medical and functional evidence show capability to perform past work | Court: Bryant can perform past relevant work |
| Whether combined impairments meet listings or preclude work | Bryant: impairments more limiting than found | ALJ: impairments do not meet listings and are controllable/treatable | Court: impairments do not meet listings and are not disabling |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Colvin, 784 F.3d 472 (8th Cir.) (standard of review; substantial-evidence framework)
- Reed v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 917 (8th Cir.) (review requires considering evidence that detracts from the Commissioner’s decision)
- Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320 (8th Cir.) (factors for evaluating claimant’s subjective complaints)
- Lowe v. Apfel, 226 F.3d 969 (8th Cir.) (ALJ need not discuss each Polaski factor methodically)
- Davis v. Apfel, 239 F.3d 962 (8th Cir.) (may discount subjective complaints when inconsistent with treatment and activities)
- Mittlestedt v. Apfel, 204 F.3d 847 (8th Cir.) (controllable impairments treated successfully do not establish disability)
- McCoy v. Astrue, 648 F.3d 605 (8th Cir.) (RFC must account for all credible limitations)
- Ostronski v. Chater, 94 F.3d 413 (8th Cir.) (RFC must be based on competent medical evidence)
- Gregg v. Barnhart, 354 F.3d 710 (8th Cir.) (deference to ALJ credibility findings when supported by substantial evidence)
- Johnson v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1145 (8th Cir.) (daily activities inconsistent with disabling claims support adverse credibility finding)