Davis v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration
4:20-cv-00117
N.D. Tex.Dec 7, 2020Background
- Davis (b. 1968) applied for disability insurance benefits alleging onset November 25, 2015; claim denied initially and on reconsideration; hearing before ALJ Green on July 25, 2018.
- ALJ found multiple severe impairments including chronic migraines, degenerative spine/joint problems, balance issues, obesity, depression, and anxiety.
- ALJ assessed RFC: light work with sit/stand option; no climbing/kneeling/crawling/squatting; occasional stoop/crouch; no overhead work, no work at heights, no work around moving machinery; limited to simple instructions and routine changes.
- ALJ found Davis unable to perform past relevant work but, relying on VE testimony, identified three representative jobs (small products assembler, hand sorter, small items inspector) available in significant numbers.
- Appeals Council denied review; magistrate judge recommended affirming the Commissioner’s decision, concluding substantial evidence supports the RFC and the step-five finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Davis) | Defendant's Argument (Commissioner) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ failed to incorporate limitations from chronic migraines into the RFC | ALJ found migraines severe but did not include limitations for photophobia, phonophobia, dizziness, memory/neck symptoms; migraines allegedly occur 3–4×/wk for 6–12 hours | Migraines are acknowledged but controlled with medication; ALJ accommodated with restrictions (no heights, no moving machinery); objective evidence does not support greater limits | RFC upheld: ALJ considered migraines, found statements not fully credible, accommodated symptoms through restrictions, and substantial evidence supports no additional limitations |
| Whether ALJ failed at step five to identify jobs in significant numbers / whether VE testimony conflicted with DOT/OOH | VE did not give DOT code for small items inspector; claimed conflict between VE characterization (light, SVP 2) and OOH/DOT training requirements making jobs inconsistent with Davis’s RFC/skills | No requirement to cite DOT code; VE testimony matched DOT per the record; ALJ asked about DOT consistency per SSR 00-4p; no direct conflict was raised at hearing | Step five upheld: VE testimony was consistent with DOT on the record, ALJ resolved apparent conflicts per SSR 00-4p, and identified jobs exist in significant numbers |
Key Cases Cited
- Perez v. Barnhart, 415 F.3d 457 (5th Cir. 2005) (RFC defined as most claimant can do despite limitations)
- Audler v. Astrue, 501 F.3d 446 (5th Cir. 2007) (Commissioner bears burden at step five)
- Carey v. Apfel, 230 F.3d 131 (5th Cir. 2000) (VE testimony can supplement or outweigh DOT descriptions)
- Johnson v. Bowen, 864 F.2d 340 (5th Cir. 1988) (impairments controlled by medication are not disabling)
- Leggett v. Chater, 67 F.3d 558 (5th Cir. 1995) (substantial evidence standard)
- Masterson v. Barnhart, 309 F.3d 267 (5th Cir. 2002) (definition of substantial gainful activity)
- Fraga v. Bowen, 810 F.2d 1296 (5th Cir. 1987) (requirement to use vocational testimony when grids inapplicable)
- Fields v. Bowen, 805 F.2d 1168 (5th Cir. 1986) (value of vocational expert’s knowledge of job requirements)