Doshi v. Colvin
1:14-cv-10282
D. Mass.Mar 30, 2015Background
- Plaintiff Kundanika N. Doshi applied for SSDI and SSI, alleging disability beginning June 1, 2007; applications were denied administratively and by an ALJ, and she appealed to district court after the Appeals Council denied review.
- Doshi, then in her mid‑40s with a ninth‑grade education and prior fast‑food employment, reported MS‑like symptoms (tingling/numbness, dizziness, balance problems, visual disturbance), fatigue, and intermittent functional limitations; treating and consultative records reflect mixed findings.
- Treating providers (primary care Dr. Brackett and neurologist Dr. Ellias) noted MS‑consistent findings; Dr. Brackett gave functional limits (e.g., lift 20 lbs occasionally; stand/walk ~4 hours), and Dr. Ellias later diagnosed MS per listing 11.09.
- State agency reviewers offered more restrictive but non‑disabling RFCs for sedentary work with occasional handling limits and endorsed ability to perform simple work tasks.
- The ALJ found severe impairments (PTSD, depression, anemia, “MS‑like symptoms”), concluded Doshi retained the RFC for sedentary work with occasional handling and limited social interaction, and at step five relied on a vocational expert to find available jobs; benefits were denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ properly evaluated Doshi's credibility and subjective complaints | Doshi: ALJ misstated and failed to apply Avery factors; improperly discounted her MS symptoms and daily‑activity limitations | Commissioner: ALJ expressly considered Avery factors, relied on consultative and state‑agency opinions, and gave specific reasons supported by record | Court: ALJ's credibility finding supported by substantial evidence; no legal error in evaluation |
| Whether ALJ improperly altered a hypothetical to the vocational expert (VE) | Doshi: ALJ changed handling limitation from occasional to frequent in VE hypothetical without medical support, producing an unreliable VE opinion | Commissioner: ALJ's hypothetical matched RFC supported by treating/source opinions (Dr. Brackett); ALJ need only include credible limitations | Court: VE testimony and ALJ hypothetical were supported by substantial evidence; no reversible error |
| Whether ALJ improperly substituted his own medical judgment for experts | Doshi: ALJ discounted treating evidence and made his own medical conclusions | Commissioner: ALJ relied on consultative exams and state reviewers, and credibility/resolution of conflicts is his province | Court: No improper substitution; resolving conflicts and weighing opinions is ALJ's role and was adequately explained |
| Appropriate remedy (remand or affirm) | Doshi: Errors warrant reversal and remand for benefits or further proceedings | Commissioner: Decision supported by substantial evidence; affirm | Court: Denied Doshi's motion; affirmed Commissioner's denial of benefits |
Key Cases Cited
- Manso‑Pizarro v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 76 F.3d 15 (1st Cir.) (substantial‑evidence review standard)
- Avery v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 797 F.2d 19 (1st Cir.) (factors for evaluating subjective pain/symptom testimony)
- Goodermote v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 690 F.2d 5 (1st Cir.) (burden‑shifting at step five)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971) (definition of substantial evidence in administrative review)
- Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103 (2000) (ALJ's duty to develop record in Social Security proceedings)