Jeffery Emard v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
953 F.3d 844
6th Cir.2020Background
- Jeffrey Emard, injured in a 2010 motorcycle accident, stopped working thereafter; he applied for Title II disability benefits with an alleged onset of October 1, 2012 and date last insured September 30, 2015.
- Medical record (2012–2017) showed degenerative cervical/lumbar disc disease with small herniations on MRI, mostly normal physical exams, conservative treatment (injections, radiofrequency ablation, meds), and some GI findings consistent with possible Crohn’s disease.
- Treating and non-treating opinions: Dr. Colleen Landino (2012) opined Emard could not work; state consultants (Dr. Jackson, Dr. Czarnecki) found ability for limited/light and simple tasks, respectively; psychologist Reilly noted poor prognosis; Dr. Lynette Masters (treating) issued a restrictive opinion in May 2017 (after date last insured).
- The ALJ found several severe impairments (degenerative disc disease, asthma, OSA, anxiety, depression), concluded Emard had an RFC for sedentary work with limitations, discounted the 2017 Masters opinion as post–date-last-insured and not relating back, and found jobs available in the national economy.
- The district court affirmed the ALJ; the Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding the ALJ’s treatment of the medical opinions, combined impairments, nonsevere impairments, and sustained-work analysis was supported by substantial evidence and correct legal standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment of Dr. Masters’s 2017 treating opinion | Masters’s opinion should have been considered and controlling because she was a treating source | Opinion was rendered after the date last insured and did not relate back to the insured period, so ALJ need not give it weight | ALJ properly gave no weight; opinion did not pertain to insured period and substantial evidence supports decision |
| Consideration of impairments in combination | ALJ evaluated impairments individually and ignored combined effect (esp. diarrhea + back pain) | ALJ stated she considered the entire record and SSR 96-8p; individual discussion does not imply failure to consider combination | ALJ complied with requirement to consider combined effects; statement and analysis suffice |
| Finding some impairments nonsevere (GERD, insomnia, hypersomnia) | ALJ erred by labeling these nonsevere | Any error is harmless because other severe impairments were found and nonsevere impairments were considered in later steps | Severity findings harmless; ALJ properly considered nonsevere impairments later |
| Sustained-work capacity under SSR 96-8p | ALJ relied improperly on ADLs and failed to assess ability to sustain work regularly | ALJ’s RFC relied on multiple evidentiary sources (state consultant opinions, medical record, detailed exertional/nonexertional findings) meeting SSR 96-8p | ALJ satisfied SSR 96-8p; substantial evidence supports RFC for sustained sedentary work |
Key Cases Cited
- Walters v. Commissioner of Social Security, 127 F.3d 525 (6th Cir. 1997) (articulates the five-step sequential evaluation for disability claims)
- Higgs v. Bowen, 880 F.2d 860 (6th Cir. 1988) (post–date-last-insured evidence is probative only to the extent it illuminates the insured period)
- Casey v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 987 F.2d 1230 (6th Cir. 1993) (post-insured treating evidence not probative if it does not reference insured period)
- Blakley v. Commissioner of Social Security, 581 F.3d 399 (6th Cir. 2009) (treating-source opinions within insured period must be weighed under regulations)
- Grisier v. Commissioner of Social Security, [citation="721 F. App'x 473"] (6th Cir. 2018) (post-date opinion phrased about current limitations does not necessarily relate back)
- Gooch v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 833 F.2d 589 (6th Cir. 1987) (ALJ’s general statement that the record was considered can suffice to show combined-impairment consideration)
- White v. Commissioner of Social Security, 572 F.3d 272 (6th Cir. 2009) (reference to applicable SSR can show compliance with ruling’s requirements)
- Maziarz v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 837 F.2d 240 (6th Cir. 1987) (a nonsevere finding at step two is harmless if impairments are considered at later steps)
- Strong v. Social Security Admin., [citation="88 F. App'x 841"] (6th Cir. 2004) (ALJ’s adverse decision may be affirmed on substantial-evidence grounds even when treating evidence is post-insured)