Cedric Galette v. Commissioner Social Security
708 F. App'x 88
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Cedric Galette applied for Social Security disability benefits in 2013, alleging physical injuries and mental disorders (anxiety, bipolar) with an onset date of March 6, 2013; the SSA denied benefits.
- At the administrative hearing Galette was represented by a non-attorney; the ALJ reviewed medical records, heard a vocational expert (VE), and found Galette capable of sedentary work with restrictions.
- The VE identified occupations (addresser, sorter, stuffer) available to a person with the ALJ’s stated limitations; the VE acknowledged a single treating source form would preclude work if given controlling weight.
- The ALJ gave little weight to the treating psychiatrist’s checkbox medical source statement, finding it inconsistent with treatment notes and more persuasive a State agency psychological consultant’s assessment of moderate limitations.
- The Appeals Council denied review; the District Court granted the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment affirming the ALJ. Galette appealed pro se and moved for appointment of counsel, which was denied on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weight of treating psychiatrist’s checkbox form | The form shows marked impairments that would preclude work | ALJ reasonably discounted the form as a checkbox document inconsistent with treatment notes; State consultant assessment more persuasive | Affirmed: ALJ permissibly gave the form little weight |
| VE testimony supporting other work | Testimony was speculative because Galette lacks training/experience in listed jobs | VE testimony coupled with RFC and medical record supports availability of jobs | Affirmed: ALJ reasonably relied on VE and RFC limitations to find jobs available |
| Adequacy of RFC mental and physical limits | RFC insufficiently accounts for psychological impairments | RFC limited Galette to simple, routine tasks and sedentary work addressing both physical and psychological limits | Affirmed: No challenge showing RFC inadequate or error |
| Appointment of counsel (district court & on appeal) | Galette requested counsel for district court and on appeal | Motion lacked demonstration of meritorious issues or the Tabron factors; no showing counsel would change outcome | Denied: No reversible error; no meritorious issue identified |
Key Cases Cited
- Zirnsak v. Colvin, 777 F.3d 607 (3d Cir. 2014) (standard of review and five-step disability evaluation)
- Mason v. Shalala, 994 F.2d 1058 (3d Cir. 1993) (checkbox medical-source forms are weak evidence)
- Fargnoli v. Massanari, 247 F.3d 34 (3d Cir. 2001) (treatment notes and consistency factors inform weight given to medical opinions)
- Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147 (3d Cir. 1993) (factors for appointment of counsel in civil cases)