Hardy v. Colvin
4:15-cv-10010
E.D. Mich.Mar 23, 2016Background
- Plaintiff Lavette R. Hardy appealed the Commissioner’s denial of Disability Insurance Benefits and SSI; the case was referred to Magistrate Judge Grand for an R&R.
- The ALJ found at Step Three that Hardy’s impairments did not meet Listing 1.04A (disorders of the spine) because of an absence of requisite motor and sensory deficits, and proceeded without obtaining an explicit medical equivalency opinion.
- The administrative record included a Disability Determination Explanation (DDE) signed by a Single Decision Maker (SDM) Joyce Cowan and psychologist Rom Kriauciunas, Ph.D.; a state agency physician, Jacinto DeBorja, M.D., indicated “complete agreement” with the SDM’s RFC but did not address Listing 1.04A or equivalency.
- Magistrate Judge Grand recommended denying the Commissioner’s motion, granting Hardy’s motion in part (remand for further proceedings), and remanding under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) because the record lacked a proper medical expert opinion on equivalence to Listing 1.04A.
- The Commissioner objected, arguing the SDM’s DDE and DeBorja’s agreement satisfied the requirement for an expert equivalency opinion; the Commissioner cited no binding authority establishing that point.
- District Judge Linda V. Parker reviewed the R&R, overruled the Commissioner’s objection, adopted the R&R, denied the Commissioner’s motion, granted Hardy’s motion in part, and remanded for further proceedings to obtain an appropriate medical equivalence determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ erred at Step Three by failing to obtain a medical opinion on whether Hardy’s impairments are medically equivalent to Listing 1.04A | Hardy: ALJ must have a medical expert opinion on equivalence; record lacked such an opinion | Commissioner: SDM’s DDE and DeBorja’s “complete agreement” with SDM’s RFC imply consideration of equivalence | Court: Held ALJ erred; record lacks a proper medical expert opinion on equivalence and remand is required |
| Whether the DDE signed by an SDM and a psychologist qualifies as a required medical consultant opinion on physical-equivalency issues | Hardy: SDM and psychologist signatures do not substitute for a medical consultant’s equivalency opinion | Commissioner: SDM signature implies consideration of equivalence; DeBorja’s agreement fills gap | Court: SDM and psychologist do not satisfy SSR 96-6p for physical-equivalency; DeBorja did not address Listing 1.04A, so requirement unmet |
| Whether DeBorja’s statement of “complete agreement” with the SDM’s RFC suffices as an expert equivalency opinion | Hardy: Agreement with an RFC is not a Listing-equivalency opinion | Commissioner: Agreement suffices to satisfy need for medical consultant opinion | Court: Rejected Commissioner’s argument because DeBorja’s statement did not mention Listing 1.04A or equivalency; not sufficient |
| Whether the ALJ’s error was harmless | Hardy: Error not harmless because an expert could have found equivalency | Commissioner: Implied harmless because RFC already limited to sedentary work | Court: Error not harmless; remand required for an expert equivalency determination |
Key Cases Cited
- Retka v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 70 F.3d 1272 (6th Cir. 1995) (generally requires a medical expert before a determination of medical equivalence)
- Barnett v. Barnhart, 381 F.3d 664 (7th Cir. 2004) (harmless-error analysis where an expert could have found listing equivalency)
- Reynolds v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., [citation="424 F. App'x 416"] (6th Cir.) (ALJ’s equivalency finding unsupported without expert opinion)