Harkness v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, 9:11-cv-02920

This case concerns Michael R. Harkness’s requests for disability insurance benefits and SSI under the Social Security Act, which the ALJ denied.
The Magistrate Judge recommended reversal and remand for a proper SSR 82-59 analysis of bipolar disorder and potential noncompliance with treatment.
The Magistrate found the ALJ’s reasoning internally inconsistent, linking noncompliance to denial while recognizing treatment’s role in enabling work.
The court reviews under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and substantial evidence standards and agrees remand is warranted for proper evaluation.
Plaintiff’s objections framed additional errors (treatment records, credibility, RFC, and VE testimony); the court adopts remand to address these concerns.
The court accepts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and remands for further proceedings consistent with the recommendation, emphasizing expedition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether noncompliance with treatment can support denial under SSR 82-59	Harkness argues noncompliance lacks proper consideration under SSR 82-59	Astrue contends noncompliance can be considered if properly evaluated	Remand for proper SSR 82-59 evaluation
Whether the ALJ’s reasoning was internally inconsistent regarding treatment and disability	Harkness contends the ALJ’s reliance on treatment status is inconsistent	The Commissioner argues the reasoning was supported by the record	Remand for a coherent, legally sound evaluation of disability due to bipolar disorder
Whether the ALJ ignored relevant medical evidence and counseling records	Harkness claims counseling records were overlooked	Record reviewed; no reversible error shown	Remand with explicit weight given to counseling records
Whether the RFC and credibility determinations were improperly stated	Harkness argues RFC and credibility were misapplied	ALJ’s findings should be weighed by fact-finder	Remand to reassess RFC and credibility with complete record
Whether VE reliance on other jobs is supported by substantial evidence	VE testimony not adequately supported	VE testimony aligns with record evidence	Remand to address evidence support for VE testimony

Breeden v. Weinberger, 493 F.2d 1002 (4th Cir. 1974) (reversals without remand when record lacks substantial evidence under correct standards)
Flack v. Cohen, 413 F.2d 278 (4th Cir. 1969) (courts must scrutinize the record and not rubber-stamp agency findings)
Vitek v. Finch, 438 F.2d 1157 (4th Cir. 1971) (courts must carefully review the record for rationality and soundness)
Hays v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453 (4th Cir. 1990) (courts resolve conflicts in evidence by agency’s determinations)
Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585 (4th Cir. 1996) (conflicting evidence falls to the Secretary to resolve)
Walker v. Bowen, 834 F.2d 635 (7th Cir. 1987) (one court’s role in resolving evidentiary conflicts)
Briscoe v. Barnhart, 425 F.3d 345 (7th Cir. 2005) (requires proper legal standards in disability determinations)
Buckner v. Apfel, 213 F.3d 1006 (8th Cir. 2000) (benefit awards require resolution of all factual issues with substantial evidence)