515 F. App'x 460
6th Cir.2013Background
- Temples filed SSA disability and SSI applications in 2006 alleging disability from February 2004.
- Applications were denied initially and on reconsideration before a hearing before an ALJ.
- ALJ denied Temples' disability claims; Appeals Council declined review; district court affirmed.
- Temples sought reopening for additional medical evidence; district court denied relief.
- Temples contends ALJ gave minimal weight to treating providers' opinions, questioned credibility, and relied on VE testimony.
- Temples also contends Appeals Council erred by not reopening/remanding for new medical evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weight of treating opinions | Temples argues treating doctors' opinions deserve controlling weight. | Defendants contend ALJ properly weighed non-controlling but supported opinions. | No reversible error; weight properly limited and supported by record. |
| Credibility of pain testimony | Temples contends her pain testimony should be fully credited. | ALJ properly found testimony inconsistent with medical evidence. | Credibility finding supported by substantial evidence. |
| VE testimony | Hypothetical to VE omitted limiting effects of Jain/Bunch opinions. | Hypotheticals incorporated only supported limits; those opinions were not relied on. | Hypotheticals properly framed; VE relied on supported limitations. |
| Appeals Council reopening | Council erred by not reopening/remanding for new August–September 2010 evidence. | No jurisdiction to review; no sentence six remand due to lack of valid basis. | Jurisdictional and remand issues resolved against Temples; case affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakley v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399 (6th Cir. 2009) (substantial-evidence standard for disability denial)
- White v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 572 F.3d 272 (6th Cir. 2009) (requires good reasons for not giving treating opinions controlling weight)
- Walters v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 127 F.3d 525 (6th Cir. 1997) (credibility must be supported by substantial evidence)
- Casey v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 987 F.2d 1230 (6th Cir. 1993) (hypothetical questions to VE must reflect supported limitations)
- Cline v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 96 F.3d 146 (6th Cir. 1996) (remand/availability of new evidence considerations)
- Bass v. McMahon, 499 F.3d 506 (6th Cir. 2007) (evidence-not-present-for-remand standards)
- Foster v. Halter, 279 F.3d 348 (6th Cir. 2001) (procedural-remand and evidence submission standards)