Ellison v. Berryhill
263 F. Supp. 3d 135
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Steven Ellison applied for SSI alleging disability from gout, arthritis, and hypertension; SSA denied benefits and an ALJ denied relief after a hearing.
- ALJ found severe impairments of gouty arthritis and osteoarthritis, concluded listings not met, and assessed an RFC for a limited range of medium work with balance/stoop/kneel/crawl limits.
- ALJ found Ellison unable to perform past relevant work but capable of other work; Appeals Council denied review.
- Ellison argued the ALJ failed to account for episodic gout flares (frequency and duration) in the RFC and that such flares would cause absenteeism making employment impossible.
- ALJ relied on medical records (noting flares reduced or controlled with medication) and discounted an April 2012 letter stating part-time capacity as inconsistent with treatment notes.
- The court agreed the ALJ adequately considered flares in the RFC but found error in failing to reconcile the vocational expert’s testimony that frequent unexpected absences would preclude employment with the ALJ’s Step‑5 finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ’s RFC omitted limitations from episodic gout flares | Ellison: ALJ failed to consider frequency/duration of flares, undermining RFC | Berryhill: Medical record and testimony support RFC that flares are controlled and do not preclude full‑time work | RFC adequately considered flares; ALJ’s narrative addressed flares and medication control and substantial evidence supports RFC |
| Whether VE testimony was properly elicited and applied at Step 5 | Ellison: ALJ failed to include flare‑related absenteeism in hypothetical; VE said unannounced absences (e.g., a week/month) preclude employment | Berryhill: VE testimony and record support ALJ’s Step‑5 conclusion | ALJ erred: failed to pose a hypothetical reflecting flare‑caused absences and ignored VE’s statement that such absences make employment impossible; remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- Butler v. Barnhart, 353 F.3d 992 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (standard: Commissioner’s decision upheld if supported by substantial evidence and correct legal standards)
- Rossello ex rel. Rossello v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 1181 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (substantial‑evidence review is highly deferential to agency fact‑finder)
- Lockard v. Apfel, 175 F. Supp. 2d 28 (D.D.C. 2001) (ALJ must pose hypotheticals to VE that accurately reflect claimant’s conditions)
- Sloan v. Astrue, 538 F. Supp. 2d 152 (D.D.C. 2008) (reliance on VE is erroneous if ALJ fails to describe claimant’s impairments accurately in questions)
- Simms v. Sullivan, 877 F.2d 1047 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (when using VE testimony, ALJ must accurately describe claimant’s physical impairments in questions posed)