Dutton v. Astrue
4:10-cv-02594
| M.D. Penn. | Jan 31, 2012Background
- Dutton met insured status through September 30, 2010, creating a timely disability claim issue.
- Plaintiff filed for DIB and SSI in late 2008; initial denial occurred in March 2009 and a hearing was held April 7, 2010.
- ALJ denied benefits on May 7, 2010; Appeals Council denied review on October 18, 2010.
- Dutton alleges chronic back/neck pain, obesity, fibromyalgia, sleep apnea, depression and anxiety affecting functioning.
- Court vacates the Commissioner’s decision and remands for a new hearing and proper evaluation of medical evidence and credibility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the RFC properly accounted for cervical disease and fibromyalgia | Dutton's cervical disc disease and fibromyalgia were not adequately considered in RFC. | ALJ found impairments and limited light work, citing overall record. | Remand for proper RFC analysis including all impairments. |
| Whether the treating physician's (Dr. Brinker) opinion was properly weighed | Treating opinion should be given controlling weight absent contradiction. | ALJ rejected Brinker’s opinion with lay analysis and no conflicting medical support. | Remand; need medical opinion-based RFC determination. |
| Whether the credibility determination properly considered Dutton's work history and symptoms | Lengthy 30-year work history supports credibility; symptoms not properly credited. | Credibility assessed via record evidence and standard tests. | Remand for proper credibility evaluation. |
| Whether all medically determinable impairments were considered at Step 4 | All impairments, severe and non-severe, must feed into RFC; omissions improper. | Step 2 found certain impairments; Step 4 considered limitations. | Remand; incomplete step-two/step-four analysis. |
| Whether the vocational expert's conclusions are supported by the RFC | RFC flawed; VE testimony based on flawed RFC. | VE testimony provided consistent with RFC. | Remand to re-evaluate RFC and VE testimony. |
Key Cases Cited
- Poulos v. Commissioner of Social Security, 474 F.3d 88 (3d Cir. 2007) (plenary review of legal issues in SSA appeals)
- Schaudeck v. Commissioner of Social Sec. Admin., 181 F.3d 429 (3d Cir. 1999) (standard for substantial evidence review)
- Krysztoforski v. Chater, 55 F.3d 857 (3d Cir. 1995) (substantial evidence requirement in SSA cases)
- Cotter v. Harris, 642 F.2d 700 (3d Cir. 1981) (must indicate which evidence was accepted/rejected and why)
- Keefe v. Shalala, 71 F.3d 1060 (2d Cir. 1995) (acceptance of treating-triend opinions; credibility considerations)
- Mastro v. Apfel, 270 F.3d 171 (3d Cir. 2001) (weight of treating opinions and medical evidence)
- Burnett v. Commissioner of Social Sec. Admin., 220 F.3d 112 (3d Cir. 2000) (consideration of all evidence in RFC assessment)
- Doak v. Heckler, 790 F.2d 26 (3d Cir. 1986) (RFC must be based on medical evidence; avoid lay speculation)
- Schmidt v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 117 (7th Cir. 1990) (do not substitute lay impressions for medical opinion)
- Morales v. Apfel, 225 F.3d 310 (3d Cir. 2000) (treating physician's opinions preference in SSA analysis)