Cole v. Astrue
661 F.3d 931
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- Cole suffered a 1994 work injury to his back; by 2000 pain disabled him from trucking.
- 2001 back surgery followed by temporary relief; by 2002 Cole reported complete pain relief.
- Post-surgery, Cole developed mood disorder; treated with counseling and psychiatric care beginning 2002.
- ALJ found Cole not disabled in 2004 and 2007 decisions, relying on physical capacity and minor daily activities.
- Vishnupad diagnosed major depressive disorder with marked impairments; RFC opinion not given controlling weight.
- District court remanded once for re-evaluation; on remand, ALJ again found non-disability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Treating-source rule compliance | Vishnupad is treating; ALJ failed to apply rule and balance factors. | ALJ considered RFC without explicit weighting; good reasons need not be stated for all analyses. | Remand required for proper Wilson balancing and weighting. |
| Good reasons for weight | ALJ did not provide weight or reasons for disregarding Vishnupad's RFC. | First decision analyzed RFC; 2007 analysis cites other evidence. | Not harmless; explicit weight and reasons required. |
| Consideration of non-treating sources | Dailey's opinions should be considered as an 'other source' with weight. | Dailey is not an acceptable medical source; limited to 'other source' consideration. | ALJ's failure to credit Dailey requires remand for proper evaluation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakley v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399 (6th Cir.2009) (failure to follow treating-source rule undermines substantial evidence)
- Wilson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541 (6th Cir.2004) (requirement to provide good reasons for weight)
- Smith v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 482 F.3d 873 (6th Cir.2007) (determine treating source status and de novo review)
- Hensley v. Astrue, 573 F.3d 263 (6th Cir.2009) (reiterates remand for treating-source rule compliance)
- Ealy v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 594 F.3d 504 (6th Cir.2010) (substantial-evidence review standard)