Hardman v. Commissioner Social Security Administration
5:14-cv-00132
N.D.W. Va.Feb 26, 2015Background
- Plaintiff Jeffrey Hardman (b. 1969) applied for DIB alleging debilitating, left‑sided chronic daily headaches and cervical/lumbar degenerative disc disease; alleged onset considered from May 31, 2009.
- Extensive treatment records from 2005–2013 show chronic, treatment‑resistant headaches (neurology, headache clinic, Botox, nerve blocks, multiple meds) and cervical/lumbar degenerative changes on imaging; treating neurologist Dr. Watson opined inability to maintain employment.
- ALJ found severe impairments of headaches and degenerative disc disease, assigned an RFC for light work with environmental and low‑stress limitations, and concluded claimant not disabled at step five based on VE testimony.
- Plaintiff appealed, arguing the ALJ erred at Step Three (Listings), failed to evaluate depression under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a, and improperly weighed medical opinions (Dr. Watson).
- Magistrate Judge issued a Report & Recommendation finding the ALJ’s Step Three analysis deficient and recommending remand; other alleged errors were not addressed further because of the Step Three deficiency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Step Three — Listings analysis | ALJ failed to identify/compare relevant Listings or explain why impairments do not meet/equal listings | ALJ’s overall finding is supported by substantial evidence (record doesn’t meet Listings) | Remand: ALJ’s Step Three discussion is inadequate; cannot conclude substantial evidence supports the finding |
| Evaluation of depression under § 404.1520a | ALJ failed to apply the special technique and account for resulting functional limits in the RFC/hypothetical | ALJ considered mental status and nonsevere limitations; substantial evidence supports decision | Not decided on merits — declined to reach because of required remand on Step Three |
| Weighing of treating/opinion evidence (Dr. Watson) | ALJ improperly gave “little weight” to treating neurologist’s opinion without adequate explanation | ALJ properly evaluated opinion evidence in accordance with regs | Not decided on merits — declined to reach because of required remand on Step Three |
| Disability determination (step five jobs) | ALJ’s RFC and VE hypotheticals were flawed due to prior errors | VE testimony supports that other light jobs exist nationally | Not finally decided — court remanded for further proceedings starting with Step Three |
Key Cases Cited
- Hays v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453 (4th Cir. 1990) (scope of review: factual findings upheld if supported by substantial evidence)
- Smith v. Schweiker, 795 F.2d 343 (4th Cir. 1986) (court will not conduct de novo review; affirm if substantial evidence supports Commissioner)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1971) (definition and standard for substantial evidence)
- Cook v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 1168 (4th Cir. 1986) (ALJ must compare claimant’s symptoms to listing criteria beyond a summary statement)
- Coffman v. Bowen, 829 F.2d 514 (4th Cir. 1987) (factual findings are not binding if based on improper legal standard)
- Laws v. Celebrezze, 368 F.2d 640 (4th Cir. 1966) (substantial evidence explained in administrative context)