Grant v. Astrue
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59563
| D.D.C. | 2012Background
- Grant, 38, with long-standing hand/arm/neck/back issues since 2001; treated by Dr. Azer; had carpal tunnel surgeries; applied for DIB/SSI in 2006 and 2007; State agency consultants reviewed record; ALJ denied benefits in 2009; Appeals Council denied review in 2011; district court upheld denial and granted defendant’s motion.
- Grant ceased work April 2006 and has prior clerical/administrative roles; medical history shows contradictory findings between treating and consulting physicians; no recent objective tests supporting total disability.
- ALJ found Grant not disabled after five-step evaluation, granting substantial weight to state agency opinions over treating physician; concluded ability to perform other work based on RFC and demographics.
- Court reviews substantial evidence standard and five-step framework; finds treating physician’s opinion not controlling due to inconsistency with record and lack of objective support.
- Dispositive issues on appeal: weight of treating physician, credibility of symptoms, and VE hypotheticals; court upholds ALJ’s rational decision.
- Final disposition: grant defendant’s motion for judgment of affirmance; deny Grant’s motion for reversal; order issued.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weight of treating physician opinion | Astrae treating opinion controlling | ALJ properly discounted due to inconsistency | No error; treating opinion not controlling given record support for other opinions |
| Grant credibility determination | ALJ overly relied on demeanor and ignored pain | ALJ properly weighed objective evidence and statements | Credibility supported by record; substantial evidence for discounting disabling pain |
| VE hypotheticals and resting limitation | Hypothetical should include resting hands 20–30 minutes | Limitations not supported by record; VE testimony adequate | No error; VE foundation valid; no need to include unsupported limitations |
Key Cases Cited
- Poulin v. Bowen, 817 F.2d 865 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (treating physician rule requires substantial weight but not controlling if inconsistent with record)
- Williams v. Shalala, 997 F.2d 1494 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (requiring explanation when treating opinion is rejected)
- Turner v. Astrue, 710 F. Supp. 2d 95 (D.D.C. 2010) (good reasons rule for weight given to treating opinions)
- Smith v. Schweiker, 795 F.2d 343 (4th Cir. 1986) (non-examining opinions with no access to treating records misleading cannot carry substantial weight)
- Butler v. Barnhart, 353 F.3d 992 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (disability framework and substantial evidence standard applied)
- Evans Fin. Corp. v. Director, 161 F.3d 30 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (standard for substantial evidence and standard of review)