Carter v. Commissioner of Social Security
137 F. Supp. 3d 998
S.D. Ohio2015Background
- Claimant applied for DIB and SSI alleging disability since August 15, 2003, based on joint disease, COPD, bipolar disorder, seizure disorder, and DVT-related problems.
- ALJ held two hearings, issued a June 7, 2012 decision finding claimant not disabled and assessed an RFC for a restricted range of light work. Appeals Council denied review.
- Treating providers (Drs. Nwokoro and Shaw) supplied opinions limiting standing/walking, sitting, lifting and other functions; a Medical Expert (Dr. Cools) testified to work limitations including probable absenteeism of 1–2 days/month.
- ALJ gave little weight to treating physicians’ opinions (finding them unsupported by objective findings) and stated he gave great weight to the ME but failed to include the ME’s absenteeism opinion in the RFC.
- Magistrate Judge Newman recommended reversing the Commissioner’s non-disability finding and remanding under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) because the ALJ’s explanations for discounting treating opinions were inadequate and because omission of the ME’s absenteeism limitation was harmful error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ properly weighed treating physicians’ opinions | ALJ failed to give "good reasons" supported by the record for discounting Drs. Nwokoro and Shaw; ALJ ignored supportive findings (leg swelling, neuropathy, DVT hospitalizations) and did not address length/frequency of treatment | ALJ argued treating opinions were unsupported by objective findings and inconsistent with the record | Remand — ALJ’s reasons were inadequate/ambiguous; failed to meaningfully explain why treating opinions lacked support, hindering review |
| Whether ALJ properly accounted for Medical Expert’s opinion that claimant would miss 1–2 days/month | Dr. Cools’s absenteeism opinion was entitled to explanation if omitted; omission prejudiced claimant because VE said 2 absences/month precludes competitive employment | ALJ relied on ME generally and adopted most limitations but did not include absenteeism in RFC without explaining omission | Remand — ALJ erred by omitting unexplained absenteeism limitation; VE testimony showed the omission could change Step Five result |
| Whether ALJ’s credibility/symptom evaluation was proper | ALJ improperly relied on claimant’s limited daily activities and treatment history to discount symptoms | Defendant defended ALJ’s credibility findings (argument not detailed in R&R) | No definitive ruling — magistrate found prior errors dispositive and instructed ALJ to reassess credibility on remand |
| Remedy: award benefits vs. remand for further proceedings | Plaintiff sought reversal and benefits or, alternatively, remand | Commissioner opposed immediate award, arguing conflicting medical opinions justify further proceedings | Remand for further proceedings — record contains conflicting opinions; benefits not appropriate at this stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971) (defines substantial evidence standard)
- Buxton v. Halter, 246 F.3d 762 (6th Cir. 2001) (ALJ has a "zone of choice" when substantial evidence supports decision)
- Rabbers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 582 F.3d 647 (6th Cir. 2009) (legal error can require reversal even if some substantial evidence supports decision)
- Blakley v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399 (6th Cir. 2009) (treating physician rule and requirement to give "good reasons")
- Wilson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541 (6th Cir. 2004) (treating source opinions and controlling-weight analysis)
- Gayheart v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365 (6th Cir. 2013) (ALJ must give specific, reviewable reasons when discounting treating opinions)
- Ealy v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 594 F.3d 504 (6th Cir. 2010) (burden shifting at Step Five and reliance on vocational expert testimony)
- Jones v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 336 F.3d 469 (6th Cir. 2003) (deference to ALJ credibility findings due to opportunity to observe testimony)