John Minch v. Commissioner Social Security
16-3901
| 3rd Cir. | Nov 15, 2017Background
- John David Minch applied for DIB and SSI alleging lower back disc disease and mental impairments; SSA denied benefits initially and on reconsideration.
- An ALJ held a hearing, found Minch not disabled, and after an initial District Court remand for additional investigation the ALJ again denied benefits, finding Minch capable of limited light work.
- The ALJ based findings on medical exams (2007–2009), imaging (MRI/EMG showing mild multilevel degenerative changes without herniation or stenosis), conservative treatment, and agency medical and psychological consultant opinions.
- The ALJ credited state consultant Dr. Lateef and found Minch’s physical exams largely normal and his mental conditions stabilized with medication; Dr. Corder’s note that Minch was "not able to work" was discounted as a checkbox on an issue reserved to the ALJ.
- A vocational expert testified that, given the RFC, Minch could perform certain unskilled light jobs; the ALJ declined to adopt a VE response premised on a non-repetitive-movement limitation because the record did not credibly establish it.
- The District Court granted summary judgment to the Commissioner; this panel affirmed, concluding the ALJ’s findings were supported by substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ improperly rejected Minch’s subjective pain complaints | Minch argued ALJ ignored intensity/persistence of pain and relied on inadequate evidence to discredit subjective complaints | ALJ pointed to minimal and inconsistent treatment, largely normal physical exams, effective meds, imaging showing only mild changes, and probative state consultative opinion | ALJ’s credibility and RFC determinations supported by substantial evidence; affirmed |
| Whether ALJ gave improper weight to treating psychiatrist’s statement that Minch was "not able to work" | Minch contended ALJ improperly discounted Dr. Corder’s assessment | Commissioner argued the remark conflicted with other treating notes, arose during acute stress, and work-ability is an ALJ determination | ALJ permissibly gave it little weight; treating note not controlling |
| Whether ALJ mischaracterized activities of daily living (ADLs) | Minch asserted ALJ overstated his ADLs to deny disability | Commissioner noted Minch reported multiple ADLs (laundry, meal prep, bills) and only mild limitations | ALJ’s characterization of mild ADL limitations was supported by record |
| Whether ALJ relied on flawed VE testimony/hypotheticals | Minch argued ALJ ignored VE answer that no entry-level jobs exist without repetitive movements | Commissioner responded the record did not credibly establish a non-repetitive-movement restriction, so VE answer was inapplicable | ALJ properly relied on VE testimony tied to credibly established limitations; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Plummer v. Apfel, 186 F.3d 422 (3d Cir. 1999) (standard for substantial evidence review)
- Ventura v. Shalala, 55 F.3d 900 (3d Cir. 1995) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Hartranft v. Apfel, 181 F.3d 358 (3d Cir. 1999) (appellate deference to ALJ factual findings)
- Burnett v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 220 F.3d 112 (3d Cir. 2000) (ALJ must explain reasons for rejecting claims of symptoms)
- Chandler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 667 F.3d 356 (3d Cir. 2011) (state agency opinions merit significant consideration)
- Bjornson v. Astrue, 671 F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 2012) (physician’s opinion on ability to work is an issue reserved to the ALJ)
- Johnson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 529 F.3d 198 (3d Cir. 2008) (use of vocational expert hypotheticals)
- Rutherford v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 546 (3d Cir. 2005) (ALJ must convey all credibly established limitations to VE)
- Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (discussion of the credit-as-true rule)