Cindy Fry v. Commissioner of Social Security
476 F. App'x 73
6th Cir.2012Background
- Fry applied for Social Security disability benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
- An ALJ found Fry’s impairments—degenerative knee disease, drug/alcohol addiction, major depressive disorder—severe but not equivalent to listed impairments.
- The ALJ concluded Fry could perform light and sedentary work and denied benefits based on a vocational expert’s testimony of available jobs.
- The Appeals Council denied review; the district court affirmed the denial, and Fry appealed.
- The court reviews the ALJ’s decision for substantial evidence, not de novo fact-finding, and weighs treating-source opinions.
- Dr. Laurence Domino, Fry’s treating psychiatrist, opined Fry could not perform even simple tasks without supervision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ properly weighed the treating-source opinion | Fry argues Domino’s opinion should receive controlling weight. | The ALJ may discount treating opinions if contradicted by substantial evidence. | ALJ properly discounted Domino’s opinion. |
| Whether substantial evidence supports denial despite treating-opinion discounting | Disability evidenced by episodic stability and Domino’s opinion. | Record shows impairment control with treatment; other evidence supports no disability. | Yes; substantial evidence supports denial. |
| Whether the ALJ's reliance on vocational expert suffices to show available work | Need explicit vocational-evidence tying functional limits to jobs. | VE testimony identifying numerous suitable jobs satisfies burden. | VE testimony satisfied burden; significant jobs exist. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bass v. McMahon, 499 F.3d 506 (6th Cir. 2007) (substantial-evidence standard governs ALJ credibility and deference)
- Smith v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 482 F.3d 873 (6th Cir. 2007) (treating physician weight can be overridden with substantial evidence)
- Warner v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 375 F.3d 387 (6th Cir. 2004) (support for discounting treating-source opinions when inconsistent with record)
- Walters v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 127 F.3d 525 (6th Cir. 1997) (evidence-based discounting of treating-source opinions)
- Harmon v. Apfel, 168 F.3d 289 (6th Cir. 1999) (VE testimony can establish available jobs for disability finding)
- Richardson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 735 F.2d 962 (6th Cir. 1984) (burden shifts to Commissioner to show substantial number of jobs exist)
- Hardaway v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 823 F.2d 922 (6th Cir. 1987) (discounting treating opinions when other evidence supported denials)
- O’Banner v. Sec’y of Health, Educ. & Welfare, 587 F.2d 321 (6th Cir. 1978) (court emphasizes need for vocational-expert input on job availability)