Ford v. Colvin
1:16-cv-11976
D. Mass.Sep 28, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Thomas Ezekiel Ford, IV applied for SSDI and SSI alleging PTSD, depression, anxiety, and obesity with an alleged onset of January 1, 2013; application denied by an ALJ on August 31, 2015 and Appeals Council denied review.
- Ford has a college and graduate degree, worked overseas (including traumatic events in Afghanistan), stopped working after 2012, and later provided substantial caregiving for ill parents.
- Treatment records (2012–2015) show PTSD symptoms (insomnia, hypervigilance, avoidance), variable PCL and GAF scores, psychotherapy and medication; some clinicians (treating providers) opined marked or extreme limitations while state consultants found ability to perform simple tasks with moderate limits.
- The ALJ gave great weight to state-agency psychologists (Drs. Walcutt, Nunez) and little weight to treating clinicians (Dr. Gartrell, LCSW Chase), found Ford capable of medium work limited to repetitive 1–5 step tasks with only casual coworker/public contact, and concluded jobs exist in significant numbers.
- Ford challenged the decision in district court arguing (1) improper discounting of treating opinions, (2) defective credibility findings, and (3) an inadequate hypothetical to the vocational expert. The court affirmed the ALJ.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weight given to treating opinions | ALJ improperly discounted treating clinicians (Dr. Gartrell, LCSW Chase); their marked/extreme limits should control | ALJ permissibly gave less weight where opinions conflicted with treatment notes, benign MSEs, daily activities, and nonexamining consultants’ reasoned reviews | Court: ALJ reasonably discounted treating opinions and permissibly relied on state consultants; substantial evidence supports weight assignment |
| Credibility of symptom testimony | ALJ’s adverse credibility finding unsupported; ALJ overemphasized GAFs, treatment gaps, and activity inconsistencies | ALJ relied on treatment notes showing psychosocial reasons for stopping work, documented activities, and objective MSEs — credibility finding is for ALJ and supported by record | Court: Credibility determination supported by substantial evidence and will not be overturned |
| Hypothetical to vocational expert / RFC framing | Hypothetical failed to capture moderate limitations in concentration/persistence/pace (beyond one–five step tasks) | ALJ’s hypothetical expressly incorporated deficits in concentration, memory, attention, and restrictions (no tandem tasks, no complex tasks) so VE testimony was adequate | Court: Hypothetical adequately reflected mental limits; no error in step-five finding |
| Reliance on non‑examining consultants | Non‑examining opinions are stale and did not consider evidence post‑June 24, 2014 | Post‑dating evidence did not show deterioration; later treating notes showed improvement and were considered — non‑examining opinions remained accurate | Court: ALJ permissibly relied on consultants; record post‑dating them did not undermine those opinions |
Key Cases Cited
- Rodriguez v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 647 F.2d 218 (1st Cir. 1981) (substantial‑evidence standard; Commissioner resolves conflicts in evidence)
- Seavey v. Barnhart, 276 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2001) (questions of law reviewed de novo; five‑step disability framework)
- Pagan v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 819 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1987) (treating physician opinions not inherently controlling)
- Arocho v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 670 F.2d 374 (1st Cir. 1982) (ALJ must include claimant’s relevant impairments in VE hypothetical)
- Lizotte v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 654 F.2d 127 (1st Cir. 1981) (ultimate disability determination for Commissioner, not doctors)
- Ramirez v. Sec'y of Health, Educ. & Welfare, 550 F.2d 1286 (1st Cir. 1977) (credibility findings by ALJ are entitled to deference)