DEGROAT v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
2:16-cv-06257
| D.N.J. | Feb 7, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Misty L. Degroat applied for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) alleging onset September 6, 2012; ALJ denied benefits March 12, 2015; Appeals Council denied review and suit followed under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
- Medically documented impairments: cervical and lumbar disc herniations with MRI evidence of nerve-root compromise, chronic kidney disease (diabetic nephropathy), diabetes, migraines/neck pain, and a frozen left shoulder; conservative and interventional pain treatments were provided (epidurals, facet blocks, rhizotomy, discogram).
- Treating pain specialist Dr. Allan Weissman completed a March 2013 opinion limiting sitting, standing/walking, pushing/pulling and finding handling/gripping problems due to numbness; primary care Dr. Guariglia offered similar functional limits.
- The ALJ found severe impairments (including disc displacement and kidney disease), determined the claimant could perform a limited range of sedentary work (RFC with sit/stand option, no overhead reaching, occasional stooping), and concluded she could perform past relevant work, so not disabled.
- On review, the district court found multiple legal and evidentiary errors in the ALJ’s Step Three and Step Four analysis and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Step Three – Listing 1.04 (spine) | ALJ failed to explain why objective findings (MRI, radiculopathy, positive SLR, motor/sensory/reflex loss) do not meet Listing 1.04 | ALJ’s concise Step Three statement and other discussion suffice when read as a whole | Remand: ALJ omitted and failed to weigh several probative findings; Step Three inhibition on Listing 1.04 not supported by substantial evidence |
| Step Three – Listing 6.05 (kidney) | Plaintiff briefly challenged ALJ’s treatment of kidney disease | Commissioner pointed to biopsy/sonogram/serology showing no Listing-level criteria | No remand: no record evidence showing Paragraph A or B criteria met; any Step Three error harmless |
| RFC – reliance on EMG and handling/fingering limits | ALJ improperly rejected handling/fingering limits based on alleged negative upper extremity EMG not in record; relied on lay interpretation | Commissioner argued ALJ properly weighed evidence including EMG notation | Remand: ALJ impermissibly relied on her own lay inference regarding EMG and used it to reject limitations; inadequate support for handling/fingering rejection |
| Weight to treating opinion (Dr. Weissman) and symptom credibility | ALJ gave only "some weight" and rejected important limitations (sit/stand, handling, push/pull) without identifying contradictory medical evidence or considering treating‑physician factors; also improperly discounted subjective testimony | Commissioner defended ALJ’s evaluation as supported by record and other opinions | Remand: ALJ failed to articulate adequate reasons or consider regulatory factors for discounting Weissman; credibility finding unsupportable given flaws in evaluating medical evidence |
| Past relevant work / VE testimony | VE not qualified on record; ALJ didn’t assess work “as actually performed” per SSR 96‑8p | Commissioner: HALLEX procedures not mandatory; VE identity available in file; RFC was function-by-function so ALJ complied with SSR 96‑8p | No reversible error on VE formality or SSR 96‑8p compliance, but past‑work finding cannot be meaningfully reviewed pending corrected RFC/credibility on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Knepp v. Apfel, 204 F.3d 78 (3d Cir. 2000) (plenary review of legal issues; deferential review of factual findings)
- Sykes v. Apfel, 228 F.3d 259 (3d Cir. 2000) (substantial evidence standard for ALJ factual findings)
- Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552 (U.S. 1988) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Burnett v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 220 F.3d 112 (3d Cir. 2000) (requirement that ALJ’s decision contain sufficient explanation to permit meaningful review)
- Cotter v. Harris, 642 F.2d 700 (3d Cir. 1981) (ALJ must indicate evidence rejected and reasons for discounting it)
- Jones v. Barnhart, 364 F.3d 501 (3d Cir. 2004) (Burnett explained: ALJ need not use particular language but decision must permit meaningful review)
- Podedworny v. Harris, 745 F.2d 210 (3d Cir. 1984) (remand appropriate where record incomplete or ALJ’s findings lack adequate reasoning)