Burnett v. Commissioner of Social Security
3:16-cv-00479
| S.D. Ohio | Feb 13, 2018Background
- Lauri Burnett sought Social Security disability benefits; the ALJ denied her claim.
- Burnett’s treating neurologist, Dr. Philip A. White, provided opinions concluding significant limitations from seizures; he treated her since 2006.
- The ALJ gave little weight to Dr. White’s opinions, finding internal inconsistencies and lack of support in the record; the ALJ relied on non-treating examiners and record reviewers who found no disabling impairment.
- Magistrate Judge Ovington recommended reversing and remanding because the ALJ failed to follow the two-step treating-source analysis before discounting Dr. White’s opinion.
- The Commissioner objected, arguing the ALJ adequately explained inconsistencies and noncompliance with medication justified discounting the treating opinion.
- The district court conducted a de novo review, adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report & Recommendations, overruled the Commissioner’s objections, reversed the ALJ’s decision, and remanded under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ properly evaluated the treating neurologist’s opinion | ALJ failed to apply the two-step treating-source test and did not give controlling/great weight to Dr. White despite his specialty and long treatment history | ALJ permissibly discounted Dr. White for internal inconsistencies and lack of supporting objective evidence | Court: ALJ erred by not performing the required treating-source analysis and failing adequately to explain discounting of Dr. White; remand required |
| Whether alleged medication noncompliance justified denial | Burnett: record shows overall compliance and Dr. White indicated medication was maxed out; periodic noncompliance not a sufficient basis without more | Commissioner: instances of noncompliance and sub-therapeutic levels support finding of nondisability | Court: ALJ’s references to noncompliance were isolated and insufficiently explained; cannot support nondisability without further explanation |
| Whether evidence warrants immediate award of benefits | Burnett: argues record strongly supports disability such that benefits should be awarded now | Commissioner: record contains opinions from reviewers and examiners finding no disabling impairments; evidence of nondisability exists | Court: Evidence of nondisability exists and proof of disability is not overwhelming; remand for further proceedings, not immediate award |
| Whether substantial evidence supports ALJ’s overall decision | Burnett: ALJ’s errors undermine substantial-evidence finding | Commissioner: substantial evidence supports the decision due to reviewer opinions and ALJ’s findings | Court: Because of legal error in evaluating treating opinion and inadequate explanation re: compliance, decision not supported by substantial evidence; remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- Valley v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 427 F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 2005) (standard for reviewing substantial evidence in Social Security cases)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1971) (definition of substantial evidence standard)
- Foster v. Bowen, 853 F.2d 483 (6th Cir. 1988) (clarifying substantial-evidence threshold)
- Gayheart v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365 (6th Cir. 2013) (requirements for weighing treating-source opinions)
- Wilson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541 (6th Cir. 2004) (treating-source opinion framework and ALJ’s obligation to explain weight given)
- Faucher v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 17 F.3d 171 (6th Cir. 1994) (when award of benefits vs. remand for further proceedings is appropriate)