Gentry v. Commissioner of Social Security
741 F.3d 708
| 6th Cir. | 2014Background
- Erika Gentry applied for Social Security disability benefits based on severe psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and longstanding orthopedic injuries from a 1994 car accident; alleged onset June 7, 2004; insured through December 31, 2009.
- Extensive, multi-specialty treatment record (dermatology, rheumatology, orthopedics, pain clinic, neurosurgery) showing progressive disease, use of high‑risk biologics, frequent flare-ups, bleeding plaques on hands, and multi‑region joint/spine pathology.
- Multiple consultative and treating opinions: agency consultative examiners (2004–2008) found limited standing/walking and hand involvement; treating orthopedist Dr. Andrew Murphy (2009) opined Gentry cannot sit, stand, or walk for long periods; 2011 exam (post‑insured date) showed further deterioration.
- ALJ denied benefits (Nov. 2011) at step four, finding RFC for sedentary work (lift 10 lbs, stand/walk 2 hrs, sit without restriction) and that Gentry could perform past receptionist work; ALJ discounted some treating opinions and claimant’s credibility.
- Sixth Circuit reversed: concluded ALJ ignored objective evidence and treating‑physician opinion (esp. Dr. Murphy), failed to evaluate combined impairments and step‑three listing properly, and remanded with instructions to award benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gentry met a listing for dermatitis/psoriasis under step three | Gentry: extensive, persistent skin lesions and psoriatic arthritis despite treatment meet Listing 8.05 and §8.00(C)(1) criteria | Commissioner: ALJ found improvements and intermittent treatment undermined a listing-level severity | Court: ALJ erred by focusing on intermittent improvement and failed to consider trajectory/seriousness; record supports meeting the listing |
| Whether ALJ properly gave weight to treating physician (Dr. Murphy) | Gentry: Dr. Murphy’s 2009 opinion (cannot sit/stand/walk for long periods) is well‑supported and entitled to controlling/deferential weight | Commissioner: ALJ discounted Murphy for gaps in treatment and lack of objective substantiation | Court: ALJ violated treating‑physician rule by failing to give good reasons and not applying the required factors; Dr. Murphy’s opinion is supported by other records |
| Whether ALJ properly evaluated credibility and the combined effects of impairments | Gentry: ALJ failed to credit bleeding lesions, hand limitations, and sitting restrictions supported by records and PT notes | Commissioner: ALJ cited intermittent treatment, alleged exaggeration, and claimant’s activities (childcare) to discount credibility | Court: ALJ improperly cherry‑picked, ignored medical support for symptoms, and failed to consider combined impairments holistically; credibility findings unsupported |
| Remedy — remand for further proceedings vs. immediate benefits award | Gentry: record is complete and overwhelmingly supports disability prior to last insured date; award benefits | Commissioner: errors could be harmless or require further development | Court: Errors not harmless; evidence sufficiently strong to award benefits; reversed and remanded for an award of benefits as of onset date |
Key Cases Cited
- Cole v. Astrue, 661 F.3d 931 (6th Cir. 2011) (standard of review and remand principles)
- Rogers v. Commissioner of Social Security, 486 F.3d 234 (6th Cir. 2007) (treating‑physician rule and substantial‑evidence review)
- Wilson v. Commissioner of Social Security, 378 F.3d 541 (6th Cir. 2004) (procedural requirements for rejecting a treating source opinion)
- Blakley v. Commissioner of Social Security, 581 F.3d 399 (6th Cir. 2009) (administrative errors can negate substantial‑evidence support)
- Hensley v. Astrue, 573 F.3d 263 (6th Cir. 2009) (remand appropriate when treating‑physician rule violated)
- Kalmbach v. Commissioner of Social Security, [citation="409 F. App'x 852"] (6th Cir.) (treating‑physician error not harmless)