Cross v. Commissioner, Social Security
1:16-cv-03718
D. MarylandJul 10, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Lavonda Cross applied for Supplemental Security Income on July 26, 2012, alleging disability beginning June 28, 2012; application denied initially and on reconsideration; ALJ denied benefits after a May 5, 2015 hearing and Appeals Council denied review.
- ALJ found severe impairments: mood disorder, anxiety disorder, personality disorder; nonsevere impairments included obesity.
- At step three the ALJ found moderate limitations in concentration, persistence, or pace and moderate limitations in other mental functional areas under the special technique.
- The ALJ’s RFC limited Cross to occasional social contact and to simple, routine, repetitive tasks but otherwise full range of exertional work; relied heavily on state agency reviewers and rejected certain treating/provider opinions and a GAF score.
- A vocational expert identified jobs consistent with the RFC; ALJ concluded Cross was not disabled. The Magistrate Judge recommended remand under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ’s step-three finding of "moderate" limitation in concentration, persistence, or pace is consistent with RFC that permits only "simple, routine, repetitive tasks" | Cross (implicitly) argues the mental limitations support disability or at least require an RFC that addresses on-task ability | Commissioner argues RFC limiting to simple, routine tasks adequately accounts for mental limitations and VE testimony supports non-disability | Magistrate Judge: Remand required under Mascio — limiting to simple tasks does not account for ability to stay on task; ALJ must reconcile step-three finding with RFC or explain why no on-task limitation is needed |
| Weight given to medical-source opinions (Dr. Gartrell, LCSW Dulaj) | Cross contends treating/source opinions warrant greater weight and explanation | Commissioner gave little weight to those opinions as inconsistent with record and gave significant weight to state agency reviewers | Magistrate Judge: ALJ’s discussion insufficient — lacks specific reasons and longitudinal context for discounting Dr. Gartrell and Dulaj; further explanation on remand is appropriate |
| Credibility/findings supporting moderate limitation | Cross asserts her reported difficulties (attention, handling stress) support the ALJ’s findings | Commissioner points to evidence of functioning and state reviewer opinions supporting milder limits | Held: ALJ cited claimant statements but also found claimant not fully credible; Magistrate Judge notes inconsistency (moderate finding based mainly on claimant statements while ALJ discounted her credibility) and requires clarification on remand |
| Harmless error regarding past relevant work finding | Cross argues past work status may affect step four | Commissioner notes VE also identified other jobs; any error about past work is harmless | Held: Any error about inability to perform past work is harmless because VE identified other jobs the claimant could perform |
Key Cases Cited
- Mascio v. Colvin, 780 F.3d 632 (4th Cir. 2015) (ALJ must account for limitations in concentration, persistence, or pace; limiting to simple tasks alone is usually insufficient)
- Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585 (4th Cir. 1996) (articulates the substantial-evidence standard for judicial review of agency decisions)
- Hays v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453 (4th Cir. 1990) (court must review the whole record to determine whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s findings)