Denniston v. Commissioner of Social Security
3:17-cv-00056
S.D. OhioJan 9, 2018Background
- Plaintiff Bradley Denniston applied for DIB and SSI alleging disability beginning Feb. 2, 2014, based on COPD, degenerative disc/joint disease, cognitive and affective disorders, and syncope; ALJ Armstrong denied benefits after the five-step analysis.
- At hearing, Denniston testified to significant exertional and respiratory limits, daily back pain, naps/sleepiness despite BiPAP, limited reading skills, and difficulty with paperwork and sustained sitting; treating records include pulmonary testing, mental-health treatment, and prior ankle surgery.
- Treating and consultative opinions in the record: Dr. Adkins (treating) restricted operating heavy machinery due to syncope; Dr. Boerger (consultative psychologist) found cognitive deficits and diagnosed cognitive disorder NOS and depressive disorder; state consultants and other examiners provided mixed RFC assessments (ranging from light to medium work, and various environmental and mental limits).
- ALJ found severe impairments of COPD, degenerative disc disease, and degenerative joint disease; RFC limited to light work with avoidance of concentrated respiratory irritants and extreme temperatures; concluded Plaintiff could perform jobs existing in the national economy and denied benefits.
- Plaintiff appealed, arguing the ALJ (1) failed to list obesity as severe, (2) erred in assessing whether COPD met Listing 3.02, (3) improperly weighed medical opinions (especially treating source Dr. Adkins and consultative Dr. Boerger), and (4) posed an incomplete hypothetical to the vocational expert.
- Magistrate Judge Ovington recommended vacating the ALJ’s decision and remanding under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), finding significant legal errors in the ALJ’s evaluation of medical opinions and inadequate explanations for the weight assigned to those opinions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to identify obesity as severe | Denniston: ALJ ignored obesity at Step 2 and its effects | Commissioner: ALJ properly considered impairments | Court did not reach this in depth but found other errors warrant remand |
| Whether COPD met Listing §3.02 | Denniston: COPD met/equaled Listing 3.02 | Commissioner: COPD did not meet or equal the Listing | ALJ’s Listing analysis not overturned on its face, but overall record errors required remand |
| Weighing treating-source opinion (Dr. Adkins) | Denniston: ALJ failed to give controlling or adequately explained weight to treating opinions and didn’t apply treating‑physician rule correctly | Commissioner: ALJ properly weighed and declined to afford controlling weight | Remand required: ALJ failed to apply the treating‑physician framework and did not provide "good reasons" supported by substantial evidence |
| Weight given to consultative/state‑agency opinions (Dr. Boerger, others) | Denniston: ALJ selectively credited opinions but failed to incorporate mental limits or explain inconsistencies | Commissioner: ALJ reasonably assessed and relied on consultants | Remand required: ALJ failed to explain weight given to non‑examining and consultative opinions and to reconcile RFC with those opinions; mental restrictions were omitted without explanation |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U.S. 467 (Sup. Ct.) (SSA benefits available only to those under the Act's defined "disability")
- Wilson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541 (6th Cir. 2004) (ALJ must give "good reasons" for weight assigned to treating-source opinions)
- Gayheart v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365 (6th Cir. 2013) (explaining treating‑source controlling‑weight framework)
- Blakley v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399 (6th Cir. 2009) (substantial‑evidence/standards of review and weighing medical opinions)
- Rogers v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234 (6th Cir. 2007) (substantial‑evidence standard and opinion‑weighing principles)
- Gentry v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 741 F.3d 708 (6th Cir. 2014) (consider combined effect of impairments)
- Rabbers v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 582 F.3d 647 (6th Cir. 2009) (legal errors can require reversal despite substantial evidence)
- Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89 (Sup. Ct.) (scope of district court authority under §405(g) to remand or reverse)
- Faucher v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 17 F.3d 171 (6th Cir.) (circumstances warranting immediate award of benefits on remand)