Davis v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
1:16-cv-00102
D.S.C.Nov 17, 2016Background
- Plaintiff Nancy L. Davis applied for SSI on January 19, 2012, alleging disability from January 1, 2012; ALJ Ethan Chase denied benefits on May 20, 2014, and the Appeals Council declined review; Davis proceeded pro se in district-court review.
- Medical record includes diagnoses and events: seizure-like episodes and syncope, headaches/migraines, anxiety and recurrent major depressive disorder, osteoarthritis/right foot surgery, diabetes and visual problems related to diabetes/hypertension; multiple ER visits and hospital admissions through 2013.
- Consultative and state-agency exams: orthopedic and psychiatric consults that noted poor effort; state agency reviewers found generally mild mental limits and physical RFC for light work with avoidance of hazards; optometrist recommended avoiding work requiring precise distance, near vision, color vision, and small objects.
- After the hearing, treating physician Dr. Bell submitted new opinions (to the Appeals Council) indicating severe functional limitations (e.g., sit/stand 1 hour each per 8-hour day, need to alternate sit/stand, lifting limited to 10 lb, unable to climb/kneel/crawl) and that fatigue from a fibromyalgia-like condition prevented full-time sedentary work.
- ALJ found severe impairments of seizure disorder, osteoarthritis, affective and anxiety disorders; assessed an RFC for light, unskilled, low-stress work with occasional postural limitations, avoidance of hazards, no driving, and only occasional interaction with others; relied on state-agency opinions and VE testimony to find jobs available.
- Magistrate Judge Hodges recommends reversal and remand because (1) the ALJ failed adequately to address functional limitations from the claimant’s documented visual impairments and the opinions suggesting color-vision/precision restrictions, and (2) the Appeals Council accepted but did not meaningfully reconcile or remand for consideration of treating physician Dr. Bell’s new, material opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ’s RFC sufficiently accounted for visual limitations | Davis contends impairments (visual deficits) and related restrictions should limit work (precision, color tasks) | Commissioner argues ALJ considered records and permissibly gave weight to state consultants and did not need to adopt optometrist’s limits | Court: ALJ failed to explain consideration/rejection of optometrist and state-reviewer opinions about visual limitations; remand recommended |
| Whether Appeals Council properly considered treating physician’s new opinion | Davis submitted Dr. Bell’s post-hearing opinion showing more restrictive limitations preventing full-time work | Commissioner contends Appeals Council found new evidence but reasonably concluded it did not warrant changing the ALJ’s decision | Court: Appeals Council erred by accepting new, material treating-source opinion but failing to remand or explain reconciliation given ALJ relied on absence of treating restrictions; remand recommended |
| Whether ALJ’s RFC narrative met the requirement to explain how evidence supports functional findings | Davis argues medical and symptom evidence require more restrictive RFC | Commissioner asserts ALJ’s RFC discussion considered symptoms, treatment, and objective findings and is supported by substantial evidence | Court: RFC insufficiently explained resolution of ambiguities (visual limits and treating opinion); inadequate for meaningful review; remand required |
| Whether substantial evidence supports non-disability finding | Davis argues combined impairments render her disabled | Commissioner contends substantial evidence (including VE testimony) supports finding of available work | Court: Because omissions regarding visual limits and treating physician’s opinion leave record unclear, cannot conclude ALJ’s conclusion rests on substantial evidence; remand ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U.S. 458 (discussing efficiency of sequential disability process)
- Walls v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137 (burden-shifting re: vocational testimony at step five)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (standard of substantial evidence review)
- Vitek v. Finch, 438 F.2d 1157 (court should not retry facts de novo)
- Pyles v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 846 (same—limits on court's role)
- Smith v. Schweiker, 795 F.2d 343 (judicial review scope for benefits denials)
- Blalock v. Richardson, 483 F.2d 773 (affirm if substantial evidence supports decision)
- Mascio v. Colvin, 780 F.3d 632 (RFC must assess claimant’s capacity for relevant functions; remand warranted when analysis frustrates meaningful review)
- Meyer v. Astrue, 662 F.3d 700 (Appeals Council must remand when new treating-source opinion fills an evidentiary gap relied upon by ALJ)
- DeLoatche v. Heckler, 715 F.2d 148 (standards for Appeals Council review of additional evidence)