Deborah Turk v. Comm'r of Social Security
647 F. App'x 638
| 6th Cir. | 2016Background
- Deborah Turk applied for DIB and SSI alleging disability beginning March 31, 2005; SSA denied benefits and an ALJ held a hearing.
- ALJ found severe impairments including degenerative disc/joint disease, hypertension, depression, anxiety, obesity, and migraines; no listing-level impairment.
- ALJ assessed an RFC for sedentary work with a sit/stand option, environmental limits, and restrictions on kneeling/climbing/crouching/stooping/crawling.
- ALJ found Turk unable to do past work but could perform other sedentary jobs through vocational expert testimony; awarded SSI beginning June 23, 2012 (post-stroke) but denied DIB because Turk’s date last insured was September 28, 2008.
- Turk appealed, arguing (1) the ALJ improperly discounted treating physician Dr. Julie Bryan’s opinion and (2) the ALJ erred by denying a closed period of disability (Mar 31, 2005–Feb 25, 2009). The district court and this court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ erred by not giving controlling weight to treating physician Dr. Bryan | Dr. Bryan’s March 22, 2009 letter described severe functional limits (minimal sitting/standing, no lifting/handling, poor concentration, inability to adapt) and should be controlling | ALJ argued the treating opinion was not supported by objective clinical findings, included vocational conclusions reserved to SSA, and conflicted with other medical evidence | Affirmed: ALJ permissibly gave the opinion little weight because it was internally inconsistent with objective record and expressed issues reserved to the Commissioner; ALJ nonetheless accommodated limitations in the RFC |
| Whether Turk was entitled to at least a closed period of disability (Mar 31, 2005–Feb 25, 2009) | Turk argued her coccydynia and other conditions produced disabling pain for a continuous 12-month period | ALJ pointed to imaging showing only mild coccygeal displacement in 2006 and normal x-rays in 2009, sporadic pain responsive to treatment, and that RFC accommodated restrictions with VE testimony supporting non-disability | Affirmed: substantial evidence supported denial of a closed period; objective findings and treatment response did not show disabling impairment for a continuous 12 months |
Key Cases Cited
- Combs v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 459 F.3d 640 (6th Cir. 2006) (treating-source rule and when treating opinions get controlling weight)
- Bogle v. Sullivan, 998 F.2d 342 (6th Cir. 1993) (framework for evaluating treating-source opinions)
- Thomas v. Colvin, 745 F.3d 802 (7th Cir. 2014) (RFC is for the ALJ, not treating doctors)
- Bass v. McMahon, 499 F.3d 506 (6th Cir. 2007) (substantial-evidence standard and deference when record supports ALJ)
- Blacha v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 927 F.2d 228 (6th Cir. 1990) (mild degenerative changes may not establish disability)
- Crouch v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 909 F.2d 852 (6th Cir. 1990) (lack of neurological deficits/atrophy undermines alleged severe disabling pain)