Dennis Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security
535 F. App'x 498
6th Cir.2013Background
- Dennis Johnson injured his back in January 2002 and has long-standing lumbar degenerative disease with documented disc herniations and radiculopathy; he has been treated with medications, physical therapy, epidural steroid injections, and specialist evaluations; surgery was discussed but deferred until after the relevant period.
- Johnson filed for DIB with a last insured date of March 31, 2007; consultative and treating records from 2002–2007 are central to the claim.
- Treating physician Dr. Poling completed RFC assessments (including a November 2008 questionnaire) indicating severe limitations; neurosurgeon Dr. Teck Mun Soo (examining specialist) found largely normal strength, range of motion, and negative straight-leg raises.
- At the ALJ hearing Johnson testified to limited sitting/standing, regular cane use, and moderate–severe continuous pain; a vocational expert (VE) identified numerous light and sedentary occupations available under various hypothetical RFCs.
- The ALJ found Johnson had several severe impairments but concluded his RFC allowed light work with some nonexertional limitations, discounted portions of Johnson’s credibility, gave greater weight to Dr. Soo over Dr. Poling, and found jobs existed in significant numbers.
- The Appeals Council denied review; the district court affirmed; the Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting Johnson’s challenges on treating‑physician deference, credibility, RFC assessment, VE/DOT conflicts, and remand for post‑decision evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ improperly rejected treating physician Dr. Poling’s opinion | Poling’s RFC should receive controlling/deferential weight showing greater limitations | ALJ reasonably discounted Poling’s later opinions as describing post‑insured deterioration and relied on examining specialist Dr. Soo whose findings were more consistent with record | Affirmed: ALJ permissibly gave limited weight to Poling and explained reasons consistent with regs and record evidence |
| Whether ALJ erred in credibility finding by cherry‑picking records | ALJ ignored record portions and improperly relied on secondary reasons to discredit subjective pain testimony | ALJ permissibly evaluated consistency with objective findings, treatment, and contemporaneous reports; any minor errors were harmless | Affirmed: credibility determination supported by substantial evidence; some minor errors harmless |
| Whether ALJ failed to perform a function‑by‑function RFC and consider combined effects (obesity, PTSD, cane) | ALJ omitted full function‑by‑function analysis and failed to credit need for cane and combined impairments | ALJ considered impairments in combination, discussed obesity/mental limits, and found insufficient objective support for cane or greater limits | Affirmed: ALJ’s RFC assessment supported by substantial evidence |
| Whether remand under sentence six is warranted for post‑decision 2010 evidence (surgery, marijuana card, workers’ comp) | New 2010 evidence shows worsened condition and would likely change outcome | Evidence is new but not material to claimant’s condition as of last insured date; no good cause to reopen earlier record | Affirmed: no sentence‑six remand because evidence not material to period at issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Ealy v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 594 F.3d 504 (6th Cir. 2010) (standard for appellate review of ALJ decision)
- Rogers v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234 (6th Cir. 2007) (substantial‑evidence standard and credibility guidance)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1971) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Colvin v. Barnhart, 475 F.3d 727 (6th Cir. 2007) (deference to agency findings supported by substantial evidence)
- Longworth v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 402 F.3d 591 (6th Cir. 2005) (appellate scope where record could support a contrary conclusion)
- Turner v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., [citation="381 F. App'x 488"] (6th Cir. 2010) (treating‑physician opinion rules and when opinions are on issues reserved to the Commissioner)
- Ulman v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 693 F.3d 709 (6th Cir. 2012) (harmless‑error review of credibility findings)
- Helm v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., [citation="405 F. App'x 997"] (6th Cir. 2011) (conservative treatment may undermine disability claim)
- Martin v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., [citation="170 F. App'x 369"] (6th Cir. 2006) (ALJ satisfied SSR 00‑4P by asking VE about consistency with DOT)
- Poppa v. Astrue, 569 F.3d 1167 (10th Cir. 2009) (failure to inquire about VE/DOT conflicts can be harmless)
- Ferguson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 628 F.3d 269 (6th Cir. 2010) (requirements for sentence‑six remand)
- Foster v. Halter, 279 F.3d 348 (6th Cir. 2001) (good cause standard for late evidence)
- Carmickle v. Comm’r, 533 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2008) (claimant may explain conservative treatment choices)
- Howard v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 276 F.3d 235 (6th Cir. 2002) (GAF scores not essential to RFC accuracy)