Hafley v. Berryhill (CONSENT)
2:16-cv-00612
M.D. Ala.Oct 24, 2017Background
- Pamela Hafley applied for DIB and SSI alleging disability from December 15, 2012; claims denied administratively and by an ALJ; Appeals Council denied review. Court reviews under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
- ALJ found severe impairments: scoliosis, left shoulder impingement, fibromyalgia, trochanteric bursitis with positive ANA; no listing-level impairment.
- ALJ adopted an RFC for a limited range of medium work (lifting up to 50 lbs occasionally, 25 frequently; standing/sitting ~6 hours; occasional postural limits and no overhead reaching more than occasionally).
- ALJ relied on consultative examiner Dr. Hirenkumar’s opinion, plaintiff’s activities, treatment records, and VE testimony to find plaintiff could perform past relevant work and alternative jobs; concluded not disabled.
- Plaintiff (pro se at hearing) raised three errors on judicial review: (1) ALJ failed to fully and fairly develop the record (heightened duty because she waived counsel), (2) ALJ’s RFC unsupported and improperly credited Dr. Hirenkumar while ignoring other evidence, and (3) ALJ improperly assessed credibility of subjective pain testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ALJ duty to develop the record | Hafley says ALJ had a heightened duty to order orthopedic consult or expert because she waived counsel and Dr. Hirenkumar (an internist) suggested further spine evaluation | Commissioner: valid waiver was obtained, no special duty triggered; record contained sufficient evidence to decide without another consult | Court: No heightened duty (valid waiver). Record adequate; no prejudicial evidentiary gap; no reversal. |
| Weight given to consultative opinion and RFC support | Hafley contends ALJ improperly gave substantial weight to Dr. Hirenkumar (cursory exam, not orthopedic) and ignored contrary medical evidence and SDM findings | Commissioner: consultative exam is probative, Dr. Hirenkumar reviewed records and her opinion is consistent with the record; SDM opinion is not an acceptable medical source and its omission is harmless | Court: ALJ sufficiently explained reliance on Dr. Hirenkumar and cited substantial evidence for RFC; failure to discuss SDM not reversible. |
| Consideration of medical records | Hafley argues ALJ ignored records showing greater limitations (treatment notes, x-rays, chiropractic records) | Commissioner: ALJ reviewed and summarized relevant records; consultative examiner considered many of those records too | Court: ALJ considered the evidence as a whole; not required to cite every line; no reversible error. |
| Credibility of subjective pain testimony | Hafley claims ALJ did not apply regulatory factors (20 C.F.R. § 404.1529) when discounting her testimony | Commissioner: ALJ evaluated daily activities, treatment, effectiveness of meds, and other factors in assessing credibility | Court: ALJ addressed multiple regulatory factors and provided clear, supported reasons for partial discounting; credibility finding upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chester v. Bowen, 792 F.2d 129 (11th Cir.) (standard for administrative finality)
- McDaniel v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 1026 (11th Cir.) (five-step sequential evaluation explained)
- Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir.) (RFC evaluation and step-five burden shift)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (Sup. Ct.) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Walker v. Bowen, 826 F.2d 996 (11th Cir.) (review standards and ALJ legal conclusions)
- Smith v. Schweiker, 677 F.2d 826 (11th Cir.) (special duty to develop record where waiver of counsel invalid)
- Brown v. Shalala, 44 F.3d 931 (11th Cir.) (reversal only where record gaps cause prejudice)
- Ingram v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 496 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir.) (ALJ not required to order consultative exam if record sufficient)
- Mitchell v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 771 F.3d 780 (11th Cir.) (credibility findings entitled to deference when supported by substantial evidence)