HEATH v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER
1:12-cv-00099
D. Me.Dec 30, 2012Background
- Heath applied for SSD/SSI; ALJ found she had severe hearing loss, mood disorder, and ADHD, with an RFC to perform simple tasks and a range of work at all exertional levels; found not disabled from 2007 to 2011; Appeals Council denied review, final decision by SSA.
- Plaintiff argues the ALJ erred by (a) underreflecting her hearing impairment and mental health issues in RFC, (b) rejecting treating psychiatrist Dr. Parent’s opinion, and (c) relying on SSR 96-9p and Grid § 204.00 to deny disability at Step 5.
- Evidence showed August 2009 audiology with moderate-severe sensorineural loss; word recognition fair in right ear and good in left; testing suggested inability to hear speech at normal conversational levels; DDS consultants also found hearing loss.
- ALJ accepted nonexertional impact of hearing loss but concluded it did not erode the sedentary occupational base; relied on SSR 96-9p and Grid § 204.00; did not adequately account for high-background-noise restrictions or need for accommodation.
- Mental health assessments included Lester (mild–moderate limitations) and Dr. Tingley (possible occasional interruptions but ability to work with accommodations); Dr. Parent’s opinion was given little weight; court upheld mental RFC and found error primarily in the handling of hearing impairment.
- The court orders reversal and remand for further proceedings focused on the hearing impairment issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ improperly assessed RFC by not accounting for hearing loss | Heath lacks ability to hear simple instructions | Grid and SSR 96-9p support no significant erosion | Remand for reevaluation of hearing impairment impact |
| Whether ALJ properly weighed Dr. Parent’s treating-source opinion | Treating opinion should be given weight | Opinion not controlling; supported by substantial evidence | No error in discounting Parent and relying on other evidence |
| Whether reliance on Grid § 204.00 and SSR 96-9p was appropriate given nonexertional impairment | Nonexertional impairment significantly erodes base; Grid inadequate | Grid applicable where nonexertional effects are negligible or accounted for by VE | Remand warranted due to improper reliance on Grid/SSR 96-9p for hearing impairment |
Key Cases Cited
- Manso-Pizarro v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 76 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 1996) (substantial evidence standard and disability determination framework)
- Rodriguez v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 647 F.2d 218 (1st Cir. 1981) (evaluation of medical evidence and disability ultimate question)
- Chenery Corp. v. Securities & Exchange Commission, 332 U.S. 194 (U.S. 1947) (agency must articulate reasoning; post hoc rationalization not allowed)
- Seavey v. Barnhart, 276 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2001) (negligible effect of non-exertional impairments on Grid needs justification)
- Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U.S. 458 (U.S. 1983) (Grid use and evaluating exertional vs nonexertional limits)