Cummings v. Colvin, 129 F. Supp. 3d 209

Plaintiff Eric A. Cummings, age 47, filed for DIB and SSI alleging disability since 2005, primarily due to chronic low back pain following an L3-4 discectomy in 2006.
Post-surgery treatment was largely conservative: intermittent physical therapy, medications, some improvement in range of motion and strength, mixed objective findings (some positive straight-leg tests, mostly normal gait and strength), and a 2012 MRI showing only mild bulging and foraminal narrowing.
Administrative history: claims filed August 15, 2011; denied administratively; hearing before ALJ Wood on Feb 28, 2013; ALJ denied benefits on April 16, 2013; Appeals Council denied review, making ALJ decision final.
ALJ found severe impairments (degenerative disc disease with radiculopathy and several mental conditions), but not meeting Listings; assessed an RFC for light work with sit/stand option and multiple restrictions; relied on VE testimony to find jobs available at light and sedentary levels.
Plaintiff appealed, arguing (1) ALJ’s RFC lacked a supporting medical opinion and (2) the Commissioner improperly redacted/removed records related to another claimant possibly relied upon by the ALJ.
District Court granted summary judgment to the Acting Commissioner, holding the ALJ’s RFC was supported by substantial evidence and that redaction of other-claimant records and any reliance on them did not require remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ALJ could make RFC absent a physician’s functional-opinion	Doak requires an RFC be supported by a physician’s opinion; ALJ erred by formulating RFC without one	Doak does not establish a per se rule; ALJ may synthesize medical evidence and reach RFC (Chandler)	Court held ALJ may make RFC based on record evidence; substantial evidence supports RFC
Whether ALJ’s RFC was supported by substantial evidence	RFC not supported because no medical opinion quantified physical limits	Record (treatment notes, imaging, plaintiff’s own reports and activities, VE testimony) supports RFC for light or at least sedentary work with sit/stand	Court held substantial evidence supports ALJ’s RFC finding
Whether redaction/removal of other-claimant records from certified transcript was improper	Commissioner improperly removed records; must file full administrative record or remand to assess reliance	HALLEX permits redaction of unrelated claimant documents; ALJ did not rely on those records	Court held redaction was permissible and no remand required because ALJ did not rely on other-claimant records
Whether any reliance on another claimant’s records requires remand	Ambiguity about whether ALJ saw or relied on those records so remand required	ALJ cited only plaintiff’s records; any possible reliance would be harmless; counsel did not object at hearing	Court held no harmful error and declined to remand

Doak v. Heckler, 790 F.2d 26 (3d Cir. 1986) (ALJ decision reversed where record limited and ALJ’s RFC contradicted medical evidence without explanation)
Chandler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 667 F.3d 356 (3d Cir. 2011) (ALJ may formulate RFC based on review of record; not required to obtain a medical source opinion for every RFC finding)
Hartranft v. Apfel, 181 F.3d 358 (3d Cir. 1999) (standard that court reviews Commissioner’s decision for substantial evidence)
Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1971) (definition of substantial evidence as what a reasonable mind accepts to support a conclusion)
Newell v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 347 F.3d 541 (3d Cir. 2003) (setting out the five-step sequential evaluation for disability)
Thomas v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 625 F.3d 798 (3d Cir. 2010) (clarifying review scope: not de novo; substantial-evidence standard applies)