660 F. App'x 449
6th Cir.2016Background
- Crum (age 26) applied for SSI and Child’s Insurance Benefits claiming borderline intellectual functioning and a gastrointestinal disorder from 2007 gunshot injuries; ALJ denied benefits and the district court affirmed.
- Medical/education evidence: school testing and later State consultative exams show full-scale IQs in the borderline range (70 and 74); school records show functional independence in some classroom tasks but poor attendance and responsibility.
- Physical condition: abdominal surgery in 2007 followed by chronic abdominal pain, intermittent ER visits, and recommended but not-completed follow-up surgery and testing; some treatment notes indicate return-to-work status at various times.
- Exam opinions: State consultative psychologist Dr. Leach recommended simple repetitive work with close supervision/job coach; primary-care physician Dr. Bell opined more restrictive limits (e.g., missing 4–5 days/month, limited standing/walking).
- Vocational expert testified that unskilled medium jobs (cleaner, dishwasher, laundry worker) exist for an individual with certain oral-instruction and limited-contact restrictions, but no jobs exist if the claimant missed 4–5 days/month or required extraordinary supervision.
- ALJ found two severe impairments (gastrointestinal disorder and borderline intellectual functioning), concluded Crum did not meet Listing 12.05(C), assigned a residual functional capacity for unskilled medium work with nonexertional limits, discounted Dr. Bell’s opinion in part, and denied benefits; Appeals Council and district court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ erred in applying Listing 12.05(C) | Crum: IQ and adaptive deficits satisfy 12.05(C) | Commissioner: IQ scores and record do not satisfy listing; ALJ’s miscitation was harmless | Court: ALJ’s conclusion supported by substantial evidence; listing not met |
| Whether ALJ failed to consider/credit State consultative examiner (Dr. Leach) | Crum: Dr. Leach’s limitations preclude sustained competitive employment | Commissioner: ALJ considered Dr. Leach and reasonably reconciled his opinion with RFC | Court: No reversible error; ALJ adequately considered Dr. Leach |
| Whether ALJ violated treating-physician rule re: Dr. Bell | Crum: ALJ failed to give good reasons for discounting Dr. Bell (esp. attendance limitation) | Commissioner: ALJ applied regulatory factors, noted gaps, lack of support, and inconsistencies with record | Court (majority): ALJ gave adequate reasons and permissibly declined controlling weight; affirmed |
| Whether procedural error requires remand | Crum: procedural failures (esp. re: treating opinion) preclude meaningful review | Commissioner: any errors were harmless and ALJ’s reasoning allows review | Dissent: would remand for failure to satisfy "good reasons" re: attendance limitation; majority affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Rogers v. Commissioner of Social Security, 486 F.3d 234 (6th Cir. 2007) (standard of review—substantial evidence and proper legal standards)
- Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security, 336 F.3d 469 (6th Cir. 2003) (Commissioner bears burden at step five to identify jobs in the national economy)
- Forrest v. Commissioner of Social Security, [citation="591 F. App'x 359"] (6th Cir. 2014) (harmless-error approach where ALJ’s findings elsewhere support denial despite listing-analysis omissions)
- Wilson v. Commissioner of Social Security, 378 F.3d 541 (6th Cir. 2004) (treating-physician rule and requirement to give good reasons for weight assigned)
- Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1987) (purpose and effect of the Listings in streamlining disability determinations)