Fahey v. Berryhill
0:17-cv-04150
| D. Minnesota | Apr 25, 2018Background
- Plaintiff Kevin Fahey applied for SSDI alleging disability from a 2012 lower back injury and hand arthritis; application filed May 7, 2013.
- ALJ found Fahey not disabled: impairments did not meet Listing 1.04 and RFC permitted light work with restrictions (20 lb lift limit; walk/stand ≤4 hours/day; change position every 30 minutes; only occasional postural movements).
- Based on that RFC, ALJ concluded Fahey could return to three past relevant jobs; Appeals Council affirmed and Fahey sued under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
- Fahey challenged only the step-three (Listing equivalence) and step-four (RFC/past work) determinations, including alleged medication side effects.
- ALJ relied on mixed objective findings (some reduced ROM and occasional positive straight-leg raise, but also many improvements and negative straight-leg tests) and concluded the record did not show continuous, Listing-level disability for 12 months.
- District Court reviewed for substantial evidence and affirmed the Commissioner, denying Fahey’s motion and granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fahey’s impairments meet or equal Listing 1.04 (spinal disorders) | Fahey: record shows nerve-root compression, reduced ROM, positive straight-leg raising sufficient to meet Listing | Commissioner: record lacks consistent objective findings (no persistent nerve root/spinal cord compromise or sustained motor loss) | Court: ALJ’s step-three finding supported by substantial evidence; Listing not met |
| Whether RFC properly assessed (physical limitations) | Fahey: greater limitations warranted; ALJ underestimated severity | Commissioner: RFC aligned with whole-record evidence showing improvement and functional ability | Court: RFC supported by substantial evidence; capable of light work with restrictions |
| Whether ALJ adequately considered medication side effects in RFC | Fahey: medication effects limit work capacity and were not adequately factored into RFC | Commissioner: ALJ considered testimony but found it not corroborated; medical letters do not establish disabling medication effects | Court: ALJ reasonably discounted claimant’s medication complaints; substantial evidence supports that conclusion |
| Whether ALJ considered combined effects of other impairments (arthritis, obesity) | Fahey: (argued generally) combination could be disabling | Commissioner: ALJ considered other impairments and found no disabling combined effect; claimant largely abandoned these arguments | Court: claimant waived detailed challenge; ALJ’s combined-impairment analysis supported by record |
Key Cases Cited
- McKinney v. Apfel, 228 F.3d 860 (8th Cir. 2000) (standard: district court reviews Commissioner’s decision for substantial evidence)
- Young v. Apfel, 221 F.3d 1065 (8th Cir. 2000) (claimant bears burden at step four to prove inability to perform past relevant work)
- Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137 (1987) (burden shifts to Commissioner at step five to show other work exists)
- Titus v. Sullivan, 4 F.3d 590 (8th Cir. 1993) (disability must be continuous for 12 months)
- Roth v. Shalala, 45 F.3d 279 (8th Cir. 1995) (claimant bears burden to prove disability)