Fleischer v. Astrue
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20068
N.D. Ohio2011Background
- Fleischer filed for DIB and SSI on March 4, 2004; applications denied and reconsidered; hearing held October 8, 2007.
- ALJ found the period of disability to be July 18, 2001 through December 31, 2003, and identified severe impairments: fibromyalgia, degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine, major depressive disorder, and CVID.
- ALJ concluded Plaintiff could perform a range of light-duty work and denied disability benefits, despite impairments and a Listing 1.04A finding.
- Treating physicians Kreiger and Deal were rejected as not satisfying the treating physician definition; the ALJ relied on other sources for RFC and credibility determinations.
- Magistrate Judge recommended remand for failure to address a mental RFC assessment by Dr. Dietz and for insufficient support linking the record to the light-work finding; Commissioner objected only to the light-work conclusion.
- District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report in part, rejected in part, vacated the Commissioner's final decision, and remanded for further proceedings to address the Dietz mental RFC assessment and related issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are Kreiger and Deal treating physicians? | Kreiger/Deal are treating physicians; their opinions should be fully weighed. | They do not meet the treating physician definition under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1502. | Not treating physicians; waiver of appeal on this issue due to no objections. |
| Did the ALJ properly consider Dr. Dietz's mental RFC assessment? | Dietz's mental RFC assessment should influence the RFC and be addressed. | Dietz's assessment was not incorporated or explained adequately. | Remand necessary; ALJ failed to address the Dietz mental RFC assessment. |
| Was the ALJ's residual functional capacity determination properly supported? | Evidence, including Dietz, supports different RFC than light work. | ALJ provided adequate reasons for light-work restriction. | Remand required due to missing consideration of Dr. Dietz's RFC. |
Key Cases Cited
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971) (substantial evidence standard and review framework)
- Felisky v. Bowen, 35 F.3d 1027 (6th Cir. 1994) (credibility standard and need for clear reasons)
- Rabbers v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 582 F.3d 647 (6th Cir. 2009) (SSA regulations and prejudice requirement; noncompliance harms claimant)
- Sarchet v. Chater, 78 F.3d 305 (7th Cir. 1996) (bridge between evidence and result; clear reasoning required)
- Wilson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541 (6th Cir. 2004) (rejection of physician's opinion requires explanation)
- Cline v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 96 F.3d 146 (6th Cir. 1996) (VE testimony must accurately reflect claimant's impairments)
- Goins v. Astrue, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121743 (N.D. Ohio (2009)) (treating physician status and evidentiary considerations)