Jacob v. Colvin
Civil Action No. 2015-0600
| D.D.C. | Mar 30, 2017Background
- Charles Jacob Jr. applied for SSI and DIB in April 2011 alleging disability since January 1, 2000; claims denied initially and on reconsideration; hearing held June 3, 2013.
- ALJ issued decision on August 8, 2013 finding Jacob not disabled, concluding severe impairments were degenerative disc disease and affective disorder, but RFC allowed simple, unskilled light work; vocational expert identified alternate work.
- Jacob challenged the ALJ’s treatment of (1) a March 4, 2013 RFC form by treating physician Dr. Siham Mahgoub (ALJ thought it was authored by a nurse practitioner), (2) the assessment of his mental impairments and learning limitations, (3) the ALJ’s finding that HIV was non-severe, and (4) the vocational expert’s job identifications as inconsistent with the DOT.
- Defendant conceded the ALJ mistakenly thought Dr. Mahgoub’s RFC was from a nurse practitioner but argued the error was harmless and that other aspects of the RFC and findings were supported by the record.
- The magistrate judge found that the ALJ erred by failing to apply the treating-physician analysis to Dr. Mahgoub’s opinion and that the error was not harmless; remanded for reevaluation of Dr. Mahgoub’s opinion. Because of this error, the court did not reach the remaining issues on the merits and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ erred by not applying treating-physician rule to Dr. Mahgoub’s RFC | ALJ misidentified RFC author as a nurse practitioner and thus failed to give controlling weight to treating physician’s opinion limiting lifting to <10 lbs and standing/walking <2 hrs | Conceded misidentification but said error was harmless because other record evidence supports ALJ’s RFC | Court: ALJ erred by not applying treating-physician analysis; error not shown harmless; remand required |
| Whether ALJ adequately accounted for mental impairments and learning disabilities | Jacob: ALJ understated social/ cognitive limitations (GAF 45, hallucinations, functional illiteracy) and should have limited work abilities more than "simple, unskilled" jobs | SSA: ALJ reasonably found limited social impairment and accounted for cognition by restricting to simple, unskilled work; GAF unreliable | Court: Did not decide on merits — remanded for reconsideration after proper treating-physician analysis |
| Whether ALJ properly found HIV non-severe and considered listings at Step 3 | Jacob: HIV caused complications (shingles, bronchitis/COPD) requiring Step 3 analysis for listings | SSA: Treating infectious disease specialist reported asymptomatic HIV and no complications; non-severe finding supported | Court: Declined to rule; left for ALJ to address on remand |
| Whether vocational expert testimony and DOT inconsistencies were properly relied on | Jacob: VE’s job titles/numbers inconsistent with DOT; ALJ relied on flawed hypotheticals that understated limitations | SSA: Conceded some title mismatches but called them harmless because other job matches remained | Court: Did not resolve; remand may require reevaluation after RFC is finalized |
Key Cases Cited
- Butler v. Barnhart, 353 F.3d 992 (D.C. Cir.) (establishing that Commissioner’s findings upheld if supported by substantial evidence)
- Little v. Colvin, 997 F. Supp. 2d 45 (D.D.C.) (describing scope of district court review and substantial-evidence standard)
- Rossello ex rel. Rossello v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 1181 (D.C. Cir.) (noting substantial-evidence review is highly deferential)
- Settles v. Colvin, 121 F. Supp. 3d 163 (D.D.C.) (applying treating-physician rule and holding treating opinion is binding unless contradicted by substantial evidence)
- Espinosa v. Colvin, 953 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C.) (ALJ must explain rejection of treating physician’s opinion)