Carnett v. Astrue
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22072
| D.D.C. | 2015Background
- Plaintiff Rickey D. Carnett, born 1963, applied for Disability Insurance Benefits alleging disability beginning August 31, 2005 (his USAF retirement date) due to multiple orthopedic problems and depression; application filed June/July 2007.
- Administrative record contains extensive medical records from October 2005 through August 2009 and DDS consultative examinations and RFC assessments (physical and mental).
- ALJ held a hearing on August 21, 2009, found severe impairments (back disorder, left foot drop, affective disorder), but concluded Plaintiff did not meet Listings and had RFC for light work with no right overhead reaching and limited to simple, routine, low-stress jobs.
- ALJ credited the vocational expert who testified Plaintiff could perform numerous jobs existing in significant numbers nationally and regionally; therefore ALJ denied benefits (decision dated February 24, 2010).
- Appeals Council denied review; Plaintiff filed suit in D.D.C. seeking reversal; district court reviewed whether the ALJ developed an adequate record and whether the decision was supported by substantial evidence.
- District court concluded the record was adequate, the ALJ applied correct legal standards, and substantial evidence supported the denial; Plaintiff’s motion for reversal denied and Commissioner’s motion for affirmance granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ failed to develop an adequate medical record (need earlier USAF records) | Carnett: ALJ should have obtained pre-2005 USAF records because they contain history of injuries and complications relevant to onset | Colvin: record included >900 pages covering Oct 2005–Aug 2009 and SSA satisfied its duty; no specific showing that earlier records were necessary | Court: ALJ record adequate; no evidence development prior to Oct 2005 was required |
| Whether Plaintiff meets or equals Listings 1.02 or 1.04 (orthopedic/spine) | Carnett: medical history and symptoms support meeting Listings | Colvin: objective evidence does not show required inability to ambulate effectively, persistent motor/sensory/reflex loss, or total atrophy/weakness | Court: substantial evidence supports ALJ’s finding that Listings 1.02 and 1.04 not met |
| Whether mental impairment meets Listing 12.04 (affective disorders) | Carnett: mental RFC and records show greater functional limitation; assessment was incomplete | Colvin: mental consultative exam and records do not show marked B criteria or Part C criteria | Court: ALJ correctly found no marked limitations or episodes of decompensation; Listing 12.04 not met |
| Whether ALJ’s RFC, credibility findings, and step-five vocational conclusion are supported | Carnett: ALJ improperly weighed evidence, relied on consultative RFCs that conflict with other records, and understated limitations | Colvin: ALJ considered full record, explained credibility findings, relied on consultative opinions and VE testimony consistent with DOT | Court: ALJ’s credibility assessment and RFC supported by record; VE testimony provided substantial evidence for step five finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Butler v. Barnhart, 353 F.3d 992 (D.C. Cir.) (standard for burden shifting and appellate review of ALJ decisions)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (Supreme Court) (definition of substantial evidence standard)
- Simms v. Sullivan, 877 F.2d 1047 (D.C. Cir.) (ALJ duty to develop the record)
- Poulin v. Bowen, 817 F.2d 865 (D.C. Cir.) (ALJ affirmative duty to develop comprehensive record)
- Blackmon v. Astrue, 719 F. Supp. 2d 80 (D.D.C.) (discussion of the five-step sequential analysis and evidence considered)
- Hays v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453 (4th Cir.) (deference to ALJ factfinding and credibility determinations)
- Brown v. Barnhart, 370 F. Supp. 2d 286 (D.D.C.) (court may not reweigh evidence; scope of review)