CARNAHAN v. ASTRUE
2:11-cv-07847
E.D. Pa.Sep 20, 2012Background
- Carnahan filed SSDI and SSI applications on June 1 and June 18, 2009, alleging disability beginning October 30, 2008 from multiple impairments; applications were denied on October 15, 2009.
- An ALJ held a hearing on June 23, 2010, with Carnahan represented and testimony from Carnahan and a vocational expert; the ALJ issued a decision denying benefits on July 2, 2010.
- Carnahan timely requested review; the Appeals Council denied review on October 25, 2011, making the ALJ’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision.
- Carnahan filed suit in the district court on December 27, 2011 seeking review of the ALJ’s decision; the court denied the request and dismissed with prejudice.
- The court’s analysis centers on whether the ALJ properly weighed treating, non-treating, and nonexamining opinions and whether the RFC is supported by substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ properly weighed treating opinions. | Carnahan contends treating opinions (Fisher, Gupta, Fras) should be given more weight. | ALJ adequately discounted treating opinions as inconsistent with evidence or as giving ultimate disability determinations. | Yes; ALJ properly weighed treating opinions and credited Dr. Brenner’s opinion where appropriate. |
| Whether ALJ properly relied on Dr. Brenner over treating physicians. | Chandler dictates state agency opinions cannot be used if incomplete or outdated. | Chandler supports reliance on a state agency opinion when consistent with evidence and adequately explained. | Yes; ALJ’s reliance on Dr. Brenner was supported by substantial evidence. |
| Whether RFC is supported by substantial evidence. | RFC relies on erroneous interpretation of tests and undervalues pain and obesity. | RFC is consistent with medical record and Dr. Brenner’s narrative. | Yes; RFC supported by substantial evidence. |
| Whether the ALJ properly assessed Carnahan’s credibility. | Daily activities and reports of pain support greater limitations. | Credibility found lacking given activities and mild objective findings. | Yes; ALJ provided specific reasons for reduced credibility. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chandler v. Commissioner of Social Security, 667 F.3d 356 (3d Cir. 2012) (state-agency opinion can support RFC when adequately explained and consistent with record)
- Brown v. Astrue, 649 F.3d 193 (3d Cir. 2011) (treating vs. non-treating opinions; non-binding on RFC without support)
- Plummer v. Apfel, 186 F.3d 422 (3d Cir. 1999) (treating opinions deserve substantial weight when supported)
- Diaz v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 577 F.3d 500 (3d Cir. 2009) (ALJ must provide reasons for discounting treating sources)
- Smith v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 632 (3d Cir. 2010) (substantial evidence standard and not weighing evidence anew)
- Reefer v. Barnhart, 326 F.3d 376 (3d Cir. 2003) (credibility evaluation requires specific, record-supported reasons)
- Salles v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 229 F. App’x 140 (3d Cir. 2007) (RFC must include credible limitations supported by record)
- Grogan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 459 F. App’x 132 (3d Cir. 2012) (form reports are weak evidence; need substantiation)
- Johnson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 529 F.3d 198 (3d Cir. 2008) (disability determination reserved to Commissioner; opinions not controlling)