Burnett v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
2:16-cv-01637
D.S.C.Aug 3, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Kelly Burnett applied for SSI on December 29, 2010, alleging disability beginning June 20, 2008; ALJ issued an unfavorable decision March 20, 2015, and Appeals Council denied review.
- Medically, Burnett had diagnoses including bipolar disorder, anxiety/panic disorder, borderline personality features, substance use (cannabis), and chronic back pain with imaging showing lumbar changes; treatment records show periods of stability while on meds and deterioration when noncompliant.
- Consultative examiner Dr. Loring (2011, 2013) found varying degrees of functional limitation: a 2011 opinion supportive of simple, low-public-contact work; 2013 opinions described greater emotional lability, concentration problems, and predicted frequent absences.
- Treating providers (Drs. Hughes and Phillips) completed questionnaires opining Burnett would likely miss >3 days/month and have frequent interruptions from attention/concentration problems.
- ALJ gave great weight to Dr. Loring’s 2011 opinion, limited weight to his 2013 opinions and to the treating physicians’ opinions, and formulated an RFC for full exertional work with nonexertional limits: no ladders/ropes/scaffolds, avoid concentrated hazards, simple 1–2 step low-stress non-production tasks, no public contact, frequent coworker contact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ properly weighed consultative examiner Dr. Loring’s opinions | Burnett: ALJ ignored or gave conclusory reasons when rejecting Loring’s 2013 opinions and failed to reconcile inconsistent findings; deterioration could explain differences | Berryhill: ALJ reasonably compared the 2011 and 2013 opinions, relying on objective exam findings, treatment records, improvement on meds, and noncompliance to explain variation | Court: ALJ provided specific, supportable reasons—gave great weight to 2011 opinion, limited weight to 2013 opinions; supported by substantial evidence |
| Whether ALJ properly weighed treating physicians’ opinions (Drs. Hughes & Phillips) | Burnett: ALJ erred in discounting treating opinions that would preclude full-time work; ALJ cherry-picked normal findings | Berryhill: ALJ permissibly found treating opinions unsupported by contemporaneous treatment notes showing normal attention/concentration, conservative/episodic treatment, and improvement when compliant | Court: ALJ gave specific reasons and substantial evidence supports giving little weight to those treating opinions |
| Whether ALJ improperly based adverse credibility/weight findings on medication noncompliance caused by inability to afford meds | Burnett: Noncompliance was due to inability to afford medications; ALJ should have accommodated that | Berryhill: Records show assistance programs available and periods of noncompliance due to neglect and substance use; ALJ’s inferences were reasonable | Court: ALJ considered claimant’s financial assertions and permissibly relied on record showing inconsistent reapplication for assistance and discretionary spending; supported by evidence |
| Whether RFC lacked any medical support after discounting opinions | Burnett: With key opinions rejected, RFC is unsupported and court can’t trace basis | Berryhill: ALJ relied on Dr. Loring (2011) for mental limits and Dr. Johnson-Bailey for physical findings; ALJ also cited treatment notes and activities | Court: RFC anchored to credited medical opinions and treatment/exam findings; not reversible for lack of medical support |
Key Cases Cited
- Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U.S. 458 (explains the five-step sequential evaluation process and need for efficiency)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (defines substantial evidence standard for administrative findings)
- Walls v. Barnhart, 296 F.3d 287 (discusses burden-shifting and use of vocational expert testimony)
- Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650 (discusses factors for weighing medical opinions)
- Mastro v. Apfel, 270 F.3d 171 (ALJ may give less weight to treating physician when persuasive contrary evidence exists)
- Totten v. Califano, 624 F.2d 10 (court may consider intermittent disability but record must show frequency/severity)