Davis v. Commissioner of Social Security
3:16-cv-00126
N.D.W. Va.Jun 1, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Denzil L. Davis, Jr. applied for DIB and SSI alleging disability from February 29, 2012; insured through Sept. 30, 2016. ALJ denied benefits and Appeals Council denied review; suit filed in federal court.
- Medical record documents chronic, multi‑region pain (right inguinal/groin neuralgia after hernia repairs; cervical, thoracic, lumbar degenerative disease and herniations), extensive conservative care, a spinal cord stimulator implant (2012) later removed for infection, multiple pain medications, PT, injections, and referrals for further surgery.
- Agency non‑examining reviewers endorsed a light RFC with sitting/standing alternation and found the claimant credible regarding symptoms; ALJ adopted their RFC but rejected the sit/stand limitation and found claimant not entirely credible.
- At hearing claimant testified to severe limits (short sitting/standing tolerance, limited use of dominant right arm, walking limits, need for sit/stand) and a VE identified a small number of light/sedentary jobs; additional restrictions (sit/stand at will, upper‑extremity handling/reaching limits) would eliminate the cited jobs.
- Magistrate Judge recommends remand: ALJ’s credibility analysis is legally deficient and not supported by substantial evidence because the ALJ selectively cited everyday activities, mischaracterized treatment as merely conservative, and failed to explain rejecting agency reviewers’ credibility findings and the sit/stand limitation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ’s credibility finding complied with law and was supported by substantial evidence | Davis: ALJ failed to build an "accurate and logical bridge" — selectively cited daily activities, mischaracterized treatment as conservative, ignored substantial contrary medical evidence and agency reviewers’ credibility findings | Commissioner: ALJ reasonably assessed credibility and limitations; decision supported by substantial evidence | Magistrate: Remand recommended — ALJ’s credibility analysis inadequate and not supported by substantial evidence; must reassess and explain findings |
| Whether rejecting the sit/stand at‑will limitation was justified | Davis: Agency reviewers included sit/stand; ALJ gave them great weight but eliminated that restriction without explanation | Commissioner: ALJ permissibly found sit/stand inconsistent with total record | Magistrate: ALJ failed to explain why he rejected that specific limitation from reviewers who found claimant credible; error requires remand |
| Whether ALJ properly weighed treatment intensity and medications | Davis: Treatment was extensive (surgeries, strong opioids, stimulator, PT); ALJ erred calling it conservative to discount credibility | Commissioner: ALJ reasonably characterized and weighed treatment in context of record | Magistrate: ALJ’s characterization unsupported — record shows aggressive and failed treatments, supporting claimant’s complaints; ALJ must reevaluate |
| Whether reliance on brief skeptical notes from a non‑treating physician was permissible to discredit claimant | Davis: ALJ over‑relied on two dismissive notes from Dr. Posadas who was not primary/treating specialist | Commissioner: ALJ may consider treating and non‑treating opinions in weighing credibility | Magistrate: ALJ erred by crediting sparse skeptical remarks over majority of treating specialists and agency reviewers without explanation; remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- Hays v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453 (4th Cir. 1990) (scope of review: findings must be supported by substantial evidence and correct legal standards applied)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Shively v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 987 (4th Cir. 1984) (ALJ credibility findings given great weight; review limited)
- Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585 (4th Cir. 1996) (two‑step pain/symptom evaluation and factors for assessing credibility)
- Coffman v. Bowen, 829 F.2d 514 (4th Cir. 1987) (factual findings not binding if reached by improper legal standard)
- Monroe v. Colvin, 826 F.3d 176 (4th Cir. 2016) (ALJ must build logical bridge between evidence and credibility determination)