Jacqueline Brooks v. Commissioner of Social Securit, 531 F. App'x 636

Brooks applied for disability benefits in July 2007, alleging disability beginning June 2007; initial denial followed by reconsideration denial.
ALJ conducted a hearing in June 2009 and issued an unfavorable decision in October 2009; Brooks was 47 at the time.
The ALJ found Brooks had several physical impairments but did not find any severe mental impairments and limited her to a restricted range of light work.
Dr. Guerrero, a nonexamining state agency consultant, concluded no medically determinable mental impairment, relying on absence of mental health treatment or referrals.
Dr. Amble, an examining but not treating psychiatrist, diagnosed mood disorder, depressive and cognitive issues, and conducted multiple psych tests, some of which were deemed invalid.
The ALJ discounted Dr. Amble’s opinions and heavily credited Dr. Guerrero’s assessment, then found the hypothetical to VE did not incorporate Brooks’s mental limitations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the ALJ apply the mental impairment special technique correctly?	Brooks argues the ALJ failed to use the required special technique for mental impairments.	Brooks contends the technique was not necessary given the evidence; the record supported the ALJ’s findings.	ALJ error: failed to apply the special technique.
Was Dr. Amble's opinion properly weighed against Dr. Guerrero's.	Brooks argues ALJ gave undue weight to Guerrero, who lacked Amble’s testing and records.	Brooks contends Guerrero’s review was adequate and supported by the record as a whole.	ALJ erred by not adequately weighing examining vs nonexamining opinions.
Was the VE hypothetical comprehensive of Brooks’s mental impairments?	Brooks asserts the VE’s testimony did not reflect her mental limitations as found by Amble.	Defendant argues the hypothetical reasonably captured Brooks’s impairments within the RFC.	Hypothetical did not accurately portray Brooks’s impairments.

Kyle v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 609 F.3d 847 (6th Cir. 2010) (de novo review and substantial evidence standard in SSA appeals)
White v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 572 F.3d 272 (6th Cir. 2009) (substantial evidence and proper legal standards)
Ealy v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 594 F.3d 504 (6th Cir. 2010) (need for complete portrayal of impairments in VE hypotheticals)
Rabbers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 582 F.3d 647 (6th Cir. 2009) (special technique as diagnostic aid; harmless error analysis)
Blakley v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399 (6th Cir. 2009) (consideration of new evidence after consultative opinions)
Fisk v. Astrue, 253 F. App’x 580 (6th Cir. 2007) (weight of nonexamining opinions and record completeness)
Faucher v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 17 F.3d 171 (6th Cir. 1994) (remand when essential issues unresolved)
Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1971) (substantial evidence standard and credibility considerations)
Rogers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234 (6th Cir. 2007) (credibility and need for clear weight in credibility determinations)
Hurst v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 753 F.2d 517 (6th Cir. 1985) (record must be considered as a whole)