Griffin v. Commissioner of Social Security, 2:11-cv-00192

Background

Chad Griffin filed for Social Security Disability and SSI, alleging disability due to intractable epilepsy and depression.
AGENCY decision denied benefits initially and on reconsideration; a hearing was held with testimony from Griffin and a vocational expert.
Griffin’s history includes seizures starting ~2007, multiple medications, and consideration of resective brain surgery.
Medical evidence shows epilepsy with abnormal memory/attention tests and depressant symptoms; multiple physicians opined on memory impairment and functional impact.
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined Griffin could perform a full range of work with limited exposure to heights and hazardous machinery, then the Appeals Council denied review; magistrate recommends remand for memory impairment and vocations testimony evaluation.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether memory impairment is a severe impairment	Griffin has documented memory impairment affecting work.	ALJ found memory impairment non-severe and relied on overall residual functional capacity.	Remand required to evaluate memory impairment properly.
Whether the ALJ properly rejected Dr. Moore's opinions	Dr. Moore’s records show epilepsy and functional limits warranting further consideration.	ALJ appropriately weighed treating-source opinions against other evidence.	Remand to address Dr. Moore’s opinions and potential Listing 11.02 implications.
Whether seizures were mischaracterized as controlled by medication	ALJ misstated evidence and failed to account for seizure frequency and after-effects.	Record supports medication-controlled seizures or noncompliance-based interpretation as appropriate.	Remand to clarify seizure impact on work capacity.
Whether the hypothetical to the vocational expert properly accounted for limitations	Hypothetical omitted memory/mental limitations evidenced in the record.	Hypothetical reflected the ALJ’s determinations of residual functional capacity.	Remand to include mental limitations and memory impairment in VE questions.
Whether substantial evidence supports the RFC and steps 4-5 findings	ALJ failed to account for impairments, especially memory and seizures, in RFC.	RFC supported by record; step findings based on substantial evidence.	Remand for proper evaluation of memory impairment and VE testimony; no decision on other issues.

Key Cases Cited

Farris v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 773 F.2d 85 (6th Cir. 1985) (severe impairment requires more than a slight abnormality)
Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1987) (clear framework for evaluating severity at step two)
Maziarz v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 837 F.2d 240 (6th Cir. 1987) (proper handling of non-severe impairments within RFC evaluation)
Tucker v. Barnhart, 201 Fed. Appx. 617 (10th Cir. 2006) (need for seizure-specific information in VE hypotheticals)
Torres v. Chater, 78 F.3d 595 (9th Cir. 1996) (adequacy of hypothetical questions in disability determinations)
Flanery v. Chater, 112 F.3d 346 (8th Cir. 1997) (seizure disorder considerations in disability analysis)
Beavers v. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, 577 F.2d 383 (6th Cir. 1978) (weight given to all record evidence in SSDI analysis)
Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1971) (evidence standard for substantial support of findings)
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (U.S. 1985) (administrative procedure and review basics)
United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981) (procedural standards for appeals in SSA cases)