Jessie Nash v. Commissioner, Social Security
907 F.3d 1086
8th Cir.2018Background
- Jessie Mae Nash (born 1956) applied for DIB and SSI alleging disability from January 31, 2012, due to right knee degenerative joint disease, right thumb arthritis, back pain, obesity, and urinary incontinence.
- Medical records show diagnoses of knee degenerative joint disease, thumb arthritis, morbid obesity, lower back pain, and a treating note of urinary incontinence; treatment records do not prescribe lying down or foot elevation as a medical restriction.
- Nash testified she must lie down and prop her feet to relieve sitting pain and that she needs frequent bathroom breaks; she also performed routine personal care, housework, errands, and social visits.
- The ALJ found Nash had severe impairments of right knee degenerative joint disease, right thumb arthritis, and obesity, but found her statements about needing to lie down/prop feet and frequent bathroom use not entirely credible and found no disabling bladder limitations.
- The ALJ assessed an RFC sufficient for Nash to return to her past work as a telemarketer and denied benefits; the district court affirmed and Nash appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the RFC/hypothetical to the vocational expert omitted Nash’s need to lie down/prop feet and frequent bathroom breaks | Nash: ALJ failed to include these limitations in VE hypotheticals, so RFC unsupported by substantial evidence | Commissioner: ALJ properly rejected those limitations as not credible and need not include unsupported subjective complaints in hypotheticals | Affirmed — ALJ credibility finding supported by medical records and activities; no duty to include unsupported limitations in VE hypotheticals |
| Whether ALJ complied with SSR 96-8p (function-by-function RFC assessment) | Nash: ALJ failed to perform required function-by-function RFC analysis | Commissioner: ALJ considered functional evidence and need not mechanically list every possible limitation | Affirmed — Court reviews for ignored evidence; substantial evidence shows ALJ considered limitations and RFC is supported |
| Whether Nash was entitled to another hearing in district court | Nash: district court should have held a new hearing | Commissioner: district court reviews record for substantial evidence and does not take new testimony | Affirmed — No entitlement to new hearing; district court correctly reviewed administrative record |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137 (Sup. Ct.) (framework for five-step disability evaluation)
- Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320 (8th Cir.) (standards for evaluating claimant’s subjective complaints)
- Travis v. Astrue, 477 F.3d 1037 (8th Cir.) (substantial-evidence standard; deference to ALJ credibility findings)
- Perkins v. Astrue, 648 F.3d 892 (8th Cir.) (ALJ need only include limitations supported by record in VE hypotheticals)
- McCoy v. Astrue, 648 F.3d 605 (8th Cir.) (ALJ not required to mechanically list and reject every possible limitation under SSR 96-8p)
- Julin v. Colvin, 826 F.3d 1082 (8th Cir.) (credibility determinations are for the ALJ and reviewed for substantial evidence)