Dunlap v. O'Malley
4:24-cv-00006
E.D. Mo.Mar 11, 2025Background
- David D. sought judicial review after the Social Security Commissioner denied his applications for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI).
- The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) previously found David D. not disabled, concluding he was capable of performing past relevant work as a production assembler.
- David D. claimed disability based on depression, bipolar disorder, high blood pressure, and a kidney condition, with an alleged onset date of September 30, 2019.
- The ALJ identified severe physical impairments (chronic kidney disease, degenerative disc disease, hypertension, obesity) but found his mental impairments were not severe.
- After an initial denial and reconsideration, David D. appealed, arguing the ALJ failed to properly evaluate the full effects of his impairments, particularly regarding reduced shoulder motion and his subjective complaints.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ALJ’s evaluation of shoulder impairment | ALJ failed to include limitations for reduced shoulder mobility found on consultative exam | ALJ discussed findings, noted no allegations or treatment for shoulder issues | ALJ not required to add shoulder limitation; supported by record |
| Evaluation of Plaintiff’s credibility (subjective claims) | ALJ failed to properly credit need to change positions and extent of limitations | ALJ properly considered activities, medical evidence, and found inconsistencies | ALJ’s credibility determination supported by substantial evidence |
| Development of the record | ALJ should have scheduled another consultative exam or obtained expert testimony | Record contained sufficient basis for decision; ALJ’s duty satisfied | No additional development required; evidence was sufficient |
| Determination of RFC (residual functional capacity) | RFC did not fully reflect all limiting effects of Plaintiff’s physical impairments | RFC grounded in objective evidence and reasonable limitations based on record | ALJ’s RFC determination supported by substantial evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (substantial evidence standard defined for Social Security cases)
- Pearsall v. Massanari, 274 F.3d 1211 (ALJ is responsible for determining RFC; court must defer if supported by evidence)
- Estes v. Barnhart, 275 F.3d 722 (substantial evidence is less than a preponderance, but more than a scintilla)
- Johnson v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1145 (defines substantial evidence and review standard)
- Coleman v. Astrue, 498 F.3d 767 (court must consider evidence detracting from the Commissioner’s decision)