Emrich v. Colvin
90 F. Supp. 3d 480
M.D.N.C.2015Background
- Cynthia Emrich applied for Disability Insurance Benefits claiming disability from Jan 1, 2003 to her date last insured (Dec 31, 2005); application was denied and she pursued hearings before an ALJ, Appeals Council remand, and a final ALJ adverse decision.
- The ALJ found severe impairments (hepatitis C, foot/ankle problems, obesity, opioid dependence in remission, panic attacks, agoraphobia) but concluded they did not meet a listing and assessed an RFC for limited light work (simple tasks, limited public contact).
- At step four the ALJ found Emrich could not do past relevant work; at step five a vocational expert testified other jobs existed, so the ALJ found not disabled.
- Emrich challenged the decision in federal court, arguing (1) the ALJ failed to give retrospective consideration to post‑DLI medical evidence and should have appointed a medical advisor under SSR 83‑20/Bird, (2) the ALJ improperly weighed two opinions of Dr. Sam Fulp (2011 questionnaire and 2013 retrospective letter), and (3) the ALJ failed to treat numerous GAF scores properly as medical opinion evidence.
- The Commissioner moved for judgment on the pleadings; the district court denied Emrich’s motion, granted the Commissioner’s, and dismissed the case with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Emrich’s Argument | Commissioner’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ erred by failing to give retrospective consideration to post‑DLI evidence and by not appointing a medical advisor | Post‑DLI records (medical notes and opinions) reasonably infer linkage to pre‑DLI condition; under Bird ALJ should have given retrospective consideration and appointed a medical advisor for ambiguous onset | Bird is inapposite because the record contained substantial pre‑DLI medical evidence; no ambiguous onset requiring SSR 83‑20 medical advisor appointment | No error: ALJ was not required to appoint a medical advisor and could rely on direct pre‑DLI evidence; Emrich’s blanket citation of record was insufficient to show linkage |
| Whether ALJ erred by failing to consider/assign weight to Dr. Fulp’s May 6, 2011 liver questionnaire | ALJ failed to mention or weigh the 2011 treating‑physician questionnaire, which should have been considered | Commissioner concedes omission but argues harmless because the 2011 form lacked retrospective timing, was largely incomplete, and did not support disability before DLI | Harmless error: the 2011 questionnaire provided no meaningful evidence tying limitations to the pre‑DLI period and would not change the outcome |
| Whether ALJ improperly discounted Dr. Fulp’s April 9, 2013 opinion that Emrich “could have been disabled” as of Jan 1, 2003 | As a treating physician, Dr. Fulp’s retrospective opinion deserved controlling or greater weight; ALJ improperly discounted it and relied on non‑treating consultant | ALJ permissibly gave little weight: Fulp is a hepatologist, not a psychiatrist; his 2013 opinion relied on claimant report rather than objective/supporting psychiatric records; ALJ applied §404.1527(c) factors | Affirmed: ALJ properly evaluated weight under treating‑physician rule and substantial evidence supports giving the 2013 opinion little weight |
| Whether ALJ erred by not treating GAF scores as medical opinions per SSA guidance | ALJ did not evaluate numerous GAF scores as medical opinion evidence in line with AM‑13066/SSR guidance | ALJ expressly discussed GAF scores and reconciled them with contemporaneous treatment notes; any omission as to 2011 GAF was harmless because pre‑DLI GAFs and notes were considered | No reversible error: ALJ evaluated and discounted GAF scores where inconsistent with treatment notes; approach complied with SSA guidance and harmless if imperfect |
Key Cases Cited
- Hines v. Barnhart, 453 F.3d 559 (4th Cir. 2006) (sets out substantial‑evidence standard and five‑step sequential evaluation)
- Frady v. Harris, 646 F.2d 143 (4th Cir. 1981) (limits scope of review of administrative decisions)
- Mastro v. Apfel, 270 F.3d 171 (4th Cir. 2001) (explains RFC formulation and review limitations)
- Bird v. Commissioner of Social Security, 699 F.3d 337 (4th Cir. 2012) (post‑DLI evidence may require retrospective consideration and SSR 83‑20 medical advisor if onset is ambiguous)
- Moore v. Finch, 418 F.2d 1224 (4th Cir. 1969) (post‑DLI medical evidence admissible to link to pre‑DLI condition)
- Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585 (4th Cir. 1996) (courts should not reweigh evidence; standard for reviewing credibility and RFC)