Butt v. Berryhill
1:15-cv-14352
S.D.W. VaFeb 28, 2017Background
- Susan Lynn Butt applied for Social Security disability insurance benefits (DIB) claiming onset August 15, 2011; insured through March 31, 2014. ALJ denied benefits; Appeals Council denied review; claimant sought judicial review.
- ALJ found claimant had not engaged in substantial gainful activity, and identified severe impairments including lumbar degenerative disc disease, history of pharyngeal flap transplant (post soft-palate carcinoma), diverticulosis, and substance-abuse history.
- ALJ determined impairments did not meet or equal a Listing and assessed a residual functional capacity (RFC) for the full range of sedentary work with “an additional unscheduled restroom break some days.”
- At step four the ALJ concluded claimant could perform past relevant work as a receptionist and therefore was not disabled through the date last insured.
- The magistrate judge found the administrative decision lacked adequate explanation for the weight given to treating and state-agency medical opinions and failed to build a logical bridge between the opinion evidence and the RFC, rendering the decision unsupported by substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ adequately accounted for limitations from the pharyngeal flap/transplant | Butt: ALJ failed to include specific functional limits from the pharyngeal flap despite finding it severe | Commissioner: VE hypothetical and RFC were adequate and supported by evidence | Court: ALJ did not explain why treating/consulting opinions were not reflected; analysis incomplete |
| Whether the RFC’s restroom-break limitation was sufficiently quantified | Butt: "additional unscheduled rest room break some days" is vague and insufficient for VE use | Commissioner: Hypothetical to VE was adequate as posed | Court: RFC and hypothetical lacked sufficient explanation tying medical opinions to limitation; prevents meaningful review |
| Whether ALJ properly weighed medical opinions (treating & state agency) | Butt: ALJ failed to identify or meaningfully weigh treating/other medical/psychiatric opinions | Commissioner: ALJ relied appropriately on state agency assessments and medical record | Court: ALJ failed to state reasons for weight given; did not apply regulatory factors or create a logical bridge; remand required |
| Whether the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence | Butt: No — procedural and explanatory errors undermine substantial-evidence review | Commissioner: Yes — record supports RFC and step-four finding | Court: No — lack of explanation for opinion weight and absence of record-based linkage to RFC means decision is not supported by substantial evidence; reverse and remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Blalock v. Richardson, 483 F.2d 773 (4th Cir. 1972) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Hall v. Harris, 658 F.2d 260 (4th Cir. 1981) (prima facie case at step four)
- McLain v. Schweiker, 715 F.2d 866 (4th Cir. 1983) (burden shift to Commissioner at step five)
- McLamore v. Weinberger, 538 F.2d 572 (4th Cir. 1976) (Commissioner must show job exists in national economy)
- Hays v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453 (4th Cir. 1990) (Commissioner resolves evidentiary conflicts)
- Oppenheim v. Finch, 495 F.2d 396 (4th Cir. 1974) (court must scrutinize record as whole)
- Radford v. Colvin, 734 F.3d 288 (4th Cir. 2013) (ALJ must provide a record of the basis for the ruling and logical bridge)
- Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985) (procedural default consequences)
- United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984) (procedural waiver principles)
- Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir. 1989) (consequences of failing to object to PF&R)
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (U.S. 1985) (objection procedures to magistrate recommendations)