Evangeline Smith v. Michael Astrue
457 F. App'x 326
4th Cir.2011Background
- Smith appealed the district court's affirmation of the SSA denial of disability benefits and SSI.
- The ALJ concluded Smith did not meet or equal a listed impairment and could perform sedentary work with restrictions.
- Smith argued the ALJ erred by not obtaining a medical opinion on Listing 1.02 and by not adequately discussing potential equivalence.
- The record included Disability Determination forms signed by Dr. Kumar and Dr. Cruise (state agency consultants).
- Smith challenged the ALJ's pain analysis and the absence of controlling weight for Dr. Davis's opinions.
- The court noted res judicata barred reexamination of prior final SSA decisions in Smith's case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the ALJ err by not obtaining a treating-opinion on medical equivalence? | Smith seeks equivalence to Listing 1.02. | State-agency opinions on equivalence were properly obtained. | No error; required opinions obtained and considered. |
| Did the ALJ adequately discuss potential listing equivalence despite alleged omissions? | ALJ failed to mention Listing 1.02 based on x-ray and Dr. Davis notes. | District court rejected this; ALJ's analysis and prior record support step-three finding. | Substantial evidence supports the step-three finding; no remand required. |
| Was the pain analysis proper, and did Craig v. Chater create a great-weight rule at step two? | Plaintiff asserts great weight to her pain statements at step two. | Craig does not establish a great-weight rule; evaluation uses all evidence. | No great-weight rule; analysis properly weighed medical and other evidence. |
| Were Dr. Davis's opinions given controlling weight and compatible with sedentary work? | Dr. Davis's limits should control the RFC. | Davis's opinions are consistent with sedentary work; not controlling weight required. | Davis's opinions support sedentary-work RFC; no error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650 (4th Cir. 2005) (substantial-evidence standard; review limited to evidence in record)
- Lively v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 820 F.2d 1391 (4th Cir. 1987) (res judicata bars reexamination of final SSA decisions)
- Fischer-Ross v. Barnhart, 431 F.3d 729 (10th Cir. 2005) (step-three listing analysis may be supported by other steps)
- Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585 (4th Cir. 1996) (pain analysis two-step framework; no automatic great-weight rule)
- Combs v. Weinberger, 501 F.2d 1361 (4th Cir. 1974) (subjective evidence may be entitled to great weight when uncontradicted)