Hibbard v. Commissioner of Social Security
1:12-cv-01216
W.D. Mich.Mar 27, 2014Background
- Plaintiff Tina Hibbard (born 1977) applied for DIB and SSI alleging disability from January 1, 2007 due to depression, bipolar disorder, obesity, and hypertension; insured status for Title II expired September 30, 2011.
- Administrative hearing held Nov. 9, 2010; ALJ found severe impairments (obesity, bipolar disorder, major depression) but residual functional capacity (RFC) for light work with specific nonexertional limits and denied benefits; Appeals Council denied review.
- Medical record includes psychiatric hospitalizations (2005, 2010), variable GAF scores (e.g., 58, 60, and a July 31, 2009 GAF of 45), treatment notes showing periods of improvement when compliant with medications, and recurring substance use (marijuana, alcohol) affecting course.
- Licensed social worker Vicki Makley provided an opinion (testified) asserting severe work limitations (inability to work reliably, frequent absences, inability to relate predictably at work); another case manager, Marissa Ripmaster, completed a form noting “marked” limits in several domains.
- Vocational expert testified that ~17,800 Michigan jobs exist compatible with the ALJ’s RFC; ALJ credited that testimony and concluded Plaintiff is not disabled.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weight given to social worker Makley’s opinion | Makley’s opinion should have more weight; ALJ failed to give good reasons for discounting it | Makley is an “unacceptable medical source”; ALJ considered and permissibly gave it little weight based on inconsistency with record, claimant testimony, and treating psychiatrist’s GAFs | ALJ properly considered Makley’s statements and permissibly afforded them very little weight |
| Weight given to Ripmaster’s supplemental form | ALJ erred in affording no weight to Ripmaster’s marked limitations | Ripmaster is an unacceptable source; the form’s categories and markings are vague/undefined and not a meaningful medical opinion | ALJ properly considered and permissibly gave the form no weight |
| Treatment of Dr. Munir’s GAF=45 | ALJ improperly discounted the treating doctor’s GAF score without good reason | GAF scores are not dispositive medical opinions; ALJ not required to give controlling weight to a GAF | ALJ permissibly discounted reliance on the GAF; no error in RFC for rejecting it as dispositive |
| Credibility of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints | Plaintiff’s testimony of disabling limitations (e.g., missing 3+ days/week, inability to concentrate or perform chores) should be credited | ALJ pointed to objective evidence, improvement with medication/abstinence, activities, and noncompliance/substance use to discount credibility | ALJ’s credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence and is entitled to deference |
Key Cases Cited
- Willbanks v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 847 F.2d 301 (6th Cir. 1988) (scope of district court review limited to administrative record)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1971) (definition of substantial evidence standard)
- Walters v. Commissioner of Social Security, 127 F.3d 525 (6th Cir. 1997) (Duncan/credibility framework and claimant burden through step four)
- Mullen v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 535 (6th Cir. 1986) (substantial-evidence "zone of choice")
- King v. Heckler, 742 F.2d 968 (6th Cir. 1984) (deference to medical opinions generally)
- O’Banner v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 587 F.2d 321 (6th Cir. 1978) (need for vocational evidence to support finding claimant can perform specific jobs)
- Bogle v. Sullivan, 998 F.2d 342 (6th Cir. 1993) (standard for substantial evidence review)