Graham v. Berryhill
5:16-cv-00731
E.D.N.C.Aug 11, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Neil C. Graham applied for disability insurance benefits and SSI, alleging disability from May 11, 2011; ALJ Mason Hogan denied benefits and the Appeals Council denied review.
- ALJ found severe impairments: right shoulder degenerative joint disease with prior rotator cuff/biceps repair, degenerative joint disease in both knees, lumbosacral degenerative disc disease and scoliosis, and mild obesity; no listing-level impairment.
- ALJ assessed RFC for a reduced range of light work: sit/stand/walk up to six hours each per 8-hour day, occasional ramps/stairs, occasional stoop/kneel/crouch/balance, no crawling or climbing ladders/scaffolds/ropes, occasional overhead reaching with non-dominant arm, and occasional use of a cane.
- ALJ found Graham could not perform past truck-driving work but could perform other jobs existing in significant numbers (e.g., furniture rental consultant, cashier II, sales attendant), and thus was not disabled.
- Plaintiff challenged the RFC and the ALJ’s weighing of treating-source medical opinions (Dr. Smith and PA Rosemarie Polinsky), arguing greater limitations; Commissioner defended the RFC and opinion analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ erred in RFC finding | Graham: pain and limitations (cannot sit/stand >10 min, limited lifting/reaching, uses cane) make him disabled | Commissioner: record supports reduced light RFC; claimant’s statements not fully corroborated | Held: RFC supported by substantial evidence; claimant not fully credible |
| Whether ALJ misapplied Medical-Vocational Guidelines | Graham: RFC and limitations trigger different application/finding | Commissioner: ALJ performed step-five transferrable-job analysis with VE and did not rely improperly on grids | Held: No error; ALJ relied on jobs consistent with RFC |
| Whether ALJ improperly discounted treating opinions | Graham: treating providers’ Medical Source Statements show more restrictive limits and deserve weight | Commissioner: Opinions lacked clinical support, inconsistent with record, and PA is not an acceptable source (at that time) | Held: ALJ gave valid reasons (supportability, consistency) for assigning little weight |
| Whether ALJ improperly evaluated credibility and symptom evidence | Graham: subjective testimony of debilitating pain should be credited | Commissioner: gaps in treatment, conservative care, activity level, and objective findings undermine credibility | Held: ALJ’s credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (substantial evidence standard for administrative findings)
- Shively v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 987 (definition of substantial evidence)
- Laws v. Celebrezze, 368 F.2d 640 (same)
- Smith v. Chater, 99 F.3d 635 (affirming Commissioner when supported by substantial evidence)
- Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650 (factors for evaluating medical opinions)
- Pass v. Chater, 65 F.3d 1200 (burden shift at step five)
- Walker v. Bowen, 889 F.2d 47 (consider combined effect of impairments)
- Mastro v. Apfel, 270 F.3d 171 (ALJ may give less weight to treating opinion when contrary evidence exists)
- Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585 (physician opinion inconsistent with clinical evidence may be discounted)
- Scivally v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 1070 (courts will not overturn ALJ for specious inconsistencies)
- Owen v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (procedural rule on objections to magistrate judge recommendations)