Dorsey v. Social Security Administration
2:17-cv-09862
E.D. La.Aug 17, 2018Background
- Dorsey received Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) after an April 13, 2011 ALJ decision (the "comparison point decision" or CPD) finding severe back disorder and hypertension and limiting him to sedentary work.
- After spinal fusion in July 2013, SSA conducted a continuing disability review and determined medical improvement such that benefits should cease as of June 11, 2014.
- ALJ Thomas Henderson held a hearing (Aug. 9, 2016) and found Dorsey had medically improved as of June 11, 2014, retained capacity for a reduced range of light/medium activity with postural and limited left overhead reaching, and could perform other work.
- The ALJ relied on post‑surgical treatment records showing normal gait, full range of motion, no atrophy or major neurological deficits, and reports that pain was controlled with medication and injections.
- Dorsey appealed, arguing (1) the ALJ improperly credited a nurse practitioner’s July 2016 opinion while attributing it to Dr. Walter Ellis, (2) he meets Listing 1.04A (spine), and (3) the cessation date and medical improvement finding lack substantial evidentiary support.
- Magistrate Judge Knowles recommended denying Dorsey’s motion, granting the Commissioner’s cross‑motion, and dismissing the case with prejudice, concluding any attribution error was harmless and substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ erred by assigning significant weight to a July 2016 treatment note while misattributing its authorship to Dr. Ellis | ALJ committed reversible error by crediting a nurse practitioner’s opinion but calling it Dr. Ellis’s opinion | The note is admissible as an "other source" and probative of functioning; misattribution was harmless because other substantial evidence supports the RFC | Harmless error; ALJ permissibly considered the nurse’s observations and RFC is supported by other record evidence |
| Whether Dorsey meets Listing 1.04A (disorders of the spine) | Dorsey contends post‑surgical records satisfy Listing 1.04A criteria (nerve compromise, motor/sensory/reflex loss, positive SLR) | Post‑surgical records show normal gait, full ROM, no atrophy, normal reflexes—so Listing criteria are not met | Listing 1.04A not met; substantial evidence supports ALJ’s step‑three finding |
| Whether substantial evidence supports medical improvement and cessation date (June 11, 2014) | Dorsey argues ALJ failed to explain or show medical improvement as of that date | Agency pointed to treating/exam records post‑surgery (motor/sensory intact, normal gait, improved function, effective treatment), and used June 2014 per prior agency notice | Substantial evidence supports medical improvement and the June 11, 2014 cessation date; ALJ met agency burden |
Key Cases Cited
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971) (defines substantial evidence standard)
- Griego v. Sullivan, 940 F.2d 942 (5th Cir. 1991) (agency must show medical improvement to terminate benefits)
- Shave v. Apfel, 238 F.3d 592 (5th Cir. 2001) (describes the five‑step disability evaluation)
- Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521 (1990) (to meet a listing claimant must satisfy all specified criteria)
- Muse v. Sullivan, 925 F.2d 785 (5th Cir. 1991) (ALJ as factfinder resolves conflicts in medical evidence)
- Johnson v. Bowen, 894 F.2d 683 (5th Cir. 1990) (pain controllable with treatment is not disabling)
- Mays v. Bowen, 837 F.2d 1362 (5th Cir. 1988) (procedural errors are not reversible absent prejudice)
- Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396 (2009) (reversal for error requires demonstration of prejudice)