Holland v. Berryhill
273 F. Supp. 3d 55
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Anthony D. Holland applied for SSI (claimed onset Apr. 1, 2008) alleging bipolar disorder, PTSD, and related functional limits; application denied administratively and on reconsideration.
- After an initial ALJ denial, the Appeals Council remanded; on rehearing ALJ Larry Banks again denied benefits (finding severe impairments: degenerative disc disease and bipolar disorder with generalized anxiety but not meeting/listing-level).
- ALJ gave little weight to treating psychiatrist Dr. Trower’s 2014 opinion that Holland could not work, instead crediting several consultative and reviewing examiners (Drs. Jaffe, Wangard, Murphy, Kaiser) who found only moderate limitations and that medication improved functioning.
- ALJ found a residual functional capacity for light work with simple instructions, occasional contact with others, and being off-task up to 5% of the workday; a VE identified jobs available under that RFC, but testified that being off-task 20% of the day would preclude work.
- Magistrate Judge Robinson recommended affirmance, concluding substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s weight assignment to non‑treating sources and credibility findings.
- District Court reviewed objections de novo and adopted the R&R, denying Holland’s motion for reversal and granting the Commissioner’s motion for affirmance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ erred in rejecting treating physician’s opinion | Holland: ALJ improperly discounted Dr. Trower; treating‑physician rule requires substantial/controlling weight unless contradicted | Commissioner: Non‑treating examiners’ consistent opinions and Dr. Trower’s inconsistent/dated notes constitute substantial evidence to discount her opinion | Held: ALJ adequately explained and substantial evidence contradicted treating opinion; discounting was permissible |
| Whether ALJ improperly discredited plaintiff’s subjective testimony | Holland: ALJ should have credited testimony that he is off‑task ≥20% (counsel’s VE hypothetical) | Commissioner: Objective records, consultative opinions, and plaintiff’s daily activities undermine extreme subjective claims | Held: ALJ’s credibility determination supported by record and RFC limiting off‑task time to 5% was reasonable |
| Whether ALJ applied the five‑step sequential analysis correctly | Holland: ALJ failed in application and RFC determination | Commissioner: ALJ followed the sequential steps, considered evidence, and solicited VE input | Held: Court found ALJ applied correct legal standards and supported findings with substantial evidence |
| Whether VE testimony supported non‑disability finding | Holland: VE response to counsel’s hypothetical shows no jobs available | Commissioner: VE established jobs for RFC including 5% off‑task; only 20% off‑task eliminates jobs | Held: VE testimony supported ALJ’s conclusion that jobs exist for the assessed RFC |
Key Cases Cited
- Butler v. Barnhart, 353 F.3d 992 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (treating‑physician rule and requirement to explain weight given to treating opinions)
- Williams v. Shalala, 997 F.2d 1494 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (treating physician opinions ordinarily entitled to substantial weight)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1971) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Rossello ex rel. Rossello v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 1181 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (deference to ALJ findings under substantial‑evidence standard)