Frank Dooley, Jr. v. Comm'r of Social Security
656 F. App'x 113
| 6th Cir. | 2016Background
- Frank Dooley applied for SSDI and SSI alleging disability beginning Sept. 18, 2011, due to back/neck pain, sciatica, diabetes, obstructive sleep apnea, hypertension, depression, and obesity.
- Pre-onset 2008 motor vehicle accident caused spinal fractures but was deemed at maximum medical improvement in 2009 with no work restrictions; later pain and diagnoses (sciatica, diabetes) continued.
- Consultative exam (July 2012, Dr. Linda Yates): largely benign exam (normal gait, full ROM, full strength) but opinion that Dooley could sit 4–6 hours/day (in 1-hour durations), stand/walk 2–3 hours/day (20-minute durations), and should avoid climbing and excessive bending/kneeling/squatting.
- Medical treatment post-onset was intermittent at a low-cost clinic (Church Health Center); treatments were generally conservative (NSAIDs, occasional narcotics), no epidural injections or physical therapy recorded; Dooley sometimes borrowed money to pay clinic fees.
- ALJ found Dooley had several severe impairments but retained RFC for medium work with limits (no ladders/ropes/scaffolds), gave limited weight to Dr. Yates, discounted Dooley’s subjective symptom testimony, and concluded Dooley could perform past relevant work; Appeals Council and district court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ properly discounted Dooley's subjective symptom testimony | Dooley: ALJ erred in finding testimony not fully credible; financial inability to afford specialist care explains limited treatment | Commissioner: Treatment history was conservative, Dooley accessed low-cost clinic and sometimes bought cigarettes, daily activities and inconsistent statements (driving) undermine credibility | Court: ALJ applied correct standards; substantial evidence supports adverse credibility findings |
| Whether ALJ gave appropriate weight to consultative examiner Dr. Yates' opinion | Dooley: ALJ should have credited Yates' restrictive limits and, if unclear, recontacted the doctor given claimant's limited access to care | Commissioner: Yates' functional restrictions were vague and inconsistent with her own benign exam findings; report was not incomplete so recontact not required | Court: ALJ permissibly gave limited weight; substantial evidence supports that Yates' opinion was internally inconsistent and need not be recontacted |
Key Cases Cited
- Gentry v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 741 F.3d 708 (6th Cir.) (standards of review for Social Security decisions)
- Blakley v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399 (6th Cir.) (substantial-evidence and "zone of choice" principles)
- Jones v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 336 F.3d 469 (6th Cir.) (ALJ may assess claimant credibility)
- Cruse v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 502 F.3d 532 (6th Cir.) (ALJ credibility determinations entitled to great weight but must have substantial evidence)
- Walters v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 127 F.3d 525 (6th Cir.) (ALJ credibility analysis guidance)
- Buxton v. Halter, 246 F.3d 762 (6th Cir.) ("zone of choice" for Commissioner decisions)