Gann v. Colvin
92 F. Supp. 3d 857
N.D. Iowa2015Background
- Bonnie Jean Gann applied for SSI on March 31, 2011, alleging disability beginning January 1, 2000; ALJ James D. Goodman denied benefits on February 7, 2013; Appeals Council denied review and this Court reviews the ALJ decision.
- ALJ found severe impairments: obesity, PTSD, bipolar I disorder, ADHD, borderline and antisocial personality disorders; found fibromyalgia and migraines non-severe.
- ALJ assessed an RFC permitting light/medium work with position changes every two hours, occasional contact with coworkers/supervisors, and a stress limit of 5/10; concluded Gann could perform past relevant work.
- ALJ discounted Gann’s subjective symptom testimony for multiple reasons (daily activities, hearing demeanor, treatment history, and examiner reports suggesting exaggeration), though the ALJ misstated some facts about post-July 2012 mental-health visits and prior complaints of low energy.
- Magistrate Judge Strand recommended affirmance; District Judge Bennett reviewed Gann’s objections de novo and adopted the R&R, affirming the Commissioner because the ALJ’s findings were supported by substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Severity of migraines & fibromyalgia | Gann: record shows treatment and frequent migraines/fibromyalgia so they are severe | Comm’r: treatment instances do not show significant, work‑limiting functional impact; conditions responsive to medication | Court: ALJ reasonably found non-severe; record lacks objective evidence of significant work limitations and conditions were controlled by meds; credibility findings support this |
| RFC adequacy | Gann: ALJ’s RFC and hypotheticals omitted marked limitations (concentration/pace) and aspects of Dr. Marandola’s opinion | Comm’r: RFC need only incorporate limitations supported by the record as a whole; ALJ properly weighed Dr. Marandola and other evidence | Court: RFC supported by substantial evidence; Step Three markings do not automatically dictate RFC; hypothetical to VE matched the RFC |
| VE testimony procedure | Gann: VE answers obtained post-hearing—denied cross-examination, requiring remand | Comm’r: ALJ disclosed VE interrogatory responses to counsel and Coffin/Coffin‑line precedent allows post-hearing reports when counsel waives cross-examination | Court: No due‑process violation; counsel had opportunity and did not request cross-examination; Coffin controls |
| Credibility of claimant | Gann: ALJ misstated facts (e.g., post‑July 2012 mental treatment, energy complaints) and improperly relied on PA’s credibility comments outside his expertise | Comm’r: ALJ correctly discounted testimony per Polaski factors; PA’s observations were relevant and supported other record evidence | Court: Some factual errors were harmless; overall credibility determination was supported by multiple valid factors (daily activities, hearing demeanor, evidence of exaggeration) and entitled to deference |
Key Cases Cited
- Cruse v. Bowen, 867 F.2d 1183 (8th Cir. 1989) (discussing SSI onset date rules)
- Pelkey v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 575 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard: affirm if supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole)
- Martise v. Astrue, 641 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 2011) (definition of "severe" impairment and considerations for migraine/fibromyalgia)
- Pickney v. Chater, 96 F.3d 294 (8th Cir. 1996) (VE hypothetical must include impairments ALJ finds supported by record)
- Hulsey v. Astrue, 622 F.3d 917 (8th Cir. 2010) (VE testimony is substantial evidence when based on hypotheticals that account for claimant’s proven impairments)
- Coffin v. Sullivan, 895 F.2d 1206 (8th Cir. 1990) (post‑hearing VE reports permissible where claimant had opportunity to respond; failure to request cross‑examination waives right)
- Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320 (8th Cir. 1984) (factors for evaluating credibility of subjective complaints)
- Stephens v. Shalala, 46 F.3d 37 (8th Cir. 1995) (prior exaggeration is a proper credibility factor)