892 F.3d 1
1st Cir.2018Background
- Darryl Coskery, a former line cook/chef, applied for SSDI and SSI in Sept. 2013; SSA denied benefits and an ALJ held a hearing Aug. 5, 2015 and issued an unfavorable decision Aug. 24, 2015.
- ALJ found Coskery had impairments but retained RFC for light work and therefore could perform other jobs (denied at step five of the five-step analysis).
- ALJ relied on medical records, Coskery’s testimony, his sister’s testimony, evidence of daily activities, and treatment noncompliance (including positive marijuana toxicology) to discount symptom severity.
- Coskery appealed to district court arguing the reviewing court must apply SSR 16-3p (issued after the ALJ decision) rather than SSR 96-7p; he contended the ALJ’s credibility/symptom evaluation would fail under SSR 16-3p.
- District court adopted the magistrate judge’s R&R upholding the ALJ (holding SSR 16-3p did not apply retroactively and, under SSR 96-7p, the decision was supported by substantial evidence); First Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SSR 16-3p (newer symptom-evaluation guidance) governs review of the ALJ’s pre‑effective‑date decision | SSR 16-3p merely clarifies existing law and therefore applies on appeal | SSR 16-3p has an applicable/effective date and is not retroactive; courts should review using rules in effect when the agency issued the decision | Court assumed without deciding SSR 16-3p could apply but concluded Coskery loses even under SSR 16-3p, so no need to resolve retroactivity |
| Whether ALJ impermissibly considered claimant’s character/truthfulness in discounting symptom testimony (SSR 16-3p issue) | ALJ relied on indications of poor character/truthfulness (e.g., marijuana statements) to discredit symptom testimony | ALJ referenced marijuana and testimony discrepancies to show treatment noncompliance, a permissible factor in evaluating symptoms | ALJ did not violate SSR 16-3p; references to marijuana and testimony inconsistency reasonably supported finding of treatment noncompliance |
| Whether ALJ improperly relied on daily activities to undermine pain/limitation claims | Activities like chores, pet care, shopping do not establish ability to perform light work | Daily activities are a proper factor; ALJ used them among several factors and drew a permissible inference supporting RFC for light work | Substantial evidence supports ALJ’s inference that daily activities undercut claimed limitations; ALJ considered activities as one of multiple factors |
| Whether ALJ failed to explain consistency/inconsistency between symptoms and the record | ALJ did not adequately explain which symptoms were inconsistent with medical record | ALJ explained at length that medical evidence, activities, and noncompliance produced inconsistencies and led to conclusion | ALJ sufficiently explained how record evidence weighed against the claimed intensity/persistence of symptoms; no legal error |
Key Cases Cited
- Seavey v. Barnhart, 276 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.) (standard of review: legal issues de novo; factual findings for substantial evidence)
- Purdy v. Berryhill, 887 F.3d 7 (1st Cir. 2018) (substantial-evidence review and Commissioner’s responsibility to weigh evidence)
- O'Connell v. Marrero-Recio, 724 F.3d 117 (1st Cir. 2013) (affirmance may be upheld on any ground manifest in the record)
- Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204 (1988) (administrative rules are not retroactive absent clear language)
- Hargress v. Social Sec. Admin., Comm'r, 874 F.3d 1284 (11th Cir. 2017) (SSR 16-3p applied only prospectively)
- Myers v. Califano, 611 F.2d 980 (4th Cir. 1980) (whether ALJ considered correct evidence is a legal question)
- Rodriguez v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 647 F.2d 218 (1st Cir. 1981) (drawing permissible inferences and resolution of conflicts is the Commissioner’s role)
- Berrios Lopez v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 951 F.2d 427 (1st Cir. 1991) (daily activities can bear on credibility and functional capacity)