John Bogley v. Nancy Berryhill
706 F. App'x 112
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- John Jacob Bogley appealed the magistrate judge’s order affirming the Commissioner’s denial of disability insurance benefits.
- ALJ denied benefits; Bogley challenged the ALJ’s treatment of treating-physician opinions (Dr. Paul McAfee), RFC formulation, evaluation of functional capacity reports, and credibility findings.
- Bogley also submitted new evidence (a 2014 letter from Dr. McAfee) to the Appeals Council, which denied review; Bogley argued the Council and magistrate judge erred in handling that evidence.
- The Fourth Circuit reviewed whether the ALJ applied proper legal standards (weight to treating opinions, function-by-function RFC, and express assignment of weight to medical opinions) and whether the record allowed meaningful appellate review.
- The court concluded the ALJ failed to discuss/assign weight to all of McAfee’s opinions and did not make sufficient, reviewable findings tying those opinions to the RFC; remand was required for the ALJ to consider the treating opinions and the new evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weight assigned to treating physician opinions | ALJ failed to assign weight to all of Dr. McAfee’s opinions | ALJ’s implicit discounting was adequate | Vacated and remanded: ALJ must discuss and assign weight to treating opinions and apply factors when not controlling |
| RFC function-by-function assessment | ALJ did not perform a function-by-function analysis before stating RFC | ALJ’s RFC was supported by the record without explicit function-by-function findings | Remanded: ALJ must identify functional limitations and assess abilities function-by-function as required by Mascio |
| Consideration of two functional capacity evaluations | ALJ failed to properly weigh two FCEs | ALJ’s assessment adequately considered evidence | Declined to rule separately; remand to allow ALJ to weigh these evaluations in light of treating opinions and RFC analysis |
| Appeals Council/new evidence (2014 McAfee letter) | Appeals Council erred in denying review and not explaining assessment of new evidence | Appeals Council properly denied review | Remanded: ALJ to consider the new evidence on remand rather than resolving Council’s action now |
Key Cases Cited
- Mascio v. Colvin, 780 F.3d 632 (4th Cir.) (ALJ must perform function-by-function RFC assessment)
- Pearson v. Colvin, 810 F.3d 204 (4th Cir.) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Lewis v. Berryhill, 858 F.3d 858 (4th Cir.) (treating-physician controlling-weight standard)
- Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650 (4th Cir.) (factors to consider when not giving controlling weight to treating source)
- Gordon v. Schweiker, 725 F.2d 231 (4th Cir.) (ALJ must indicate weight given to relevant evidence for meaningful review)
- Meyer v. Astrue, 662 F.3d 700 (4th Cir.) (remand required when new evidence is submitted to Appeals Council for ALJ consideration)