Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security
5:13-cv-00871
W.D. Okla.Nov 26, 2014Background
- Plaintiff Robert W. Johnson applied for SSI on June 30, 2010, alleging disability from panic attacks and major depression; ALJ denied benefits after a March 9, 2012 hearing and the Appeals Council denied review.
- ALJ found severe impairments: panic attacks without agoraphobia, recurrent major depression (moderate, without psychotic features), and substance/alcohol abuse in sustained remission.
- ALJ assessed an RFC for full range of work at all exertional levels with nonexertional limits: simple tasks, superficial coworker/supervisor contact, no public contact.
- ALJ relied exclusively on the Medical-Vocational Guidelines (the Grids) at step five, concluding nonexertional limits had "little or no effect" on the unskilled occupational base.
- Magistrate Judge found the RFC and step-five analysis deficient because the ALJ failed to account for or explain limitations from documented panic attacks (including episodes rendering claimant unable to function for up to two hours) and did not substantiate reliance on the Grids.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ properly assessed nonexertional mental limitations (panic attacks, concentration) in RFC | Johnson: ALJ ignored/failed to explain functional limits from panic attacks and concentration problems; RFC not supported by substantial evidence | Commissioner: ALJ considered evidence and claimant responded to treatment | Held: ALJ failed to incorporate or explain rejection of probative evidence about panic attacks and their functional impact; RFC not supported; remand required |
| Whether ALJ could rely on the Grids without vocational expert testimony | Johnson: Mental nonexertional limits preclude exclusive Grid use; VE testimony required | Commissioner: Mitchell supports applying Grids with similar nonexertional limits | Held: ALJ gave only conclusory statement that limits had negligible effect and failed to analyze or cite evidence; cannot rely on Grids here; remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- Wall v. Astrue, 561 F.3d 1048 (10th Cir.) (standard five-step process and substantial-evidence review)
- Poppa v. Astrue, 569 F.3d 1167 (10th Cir.) (RFC must be based on entire record including credibility findings)
- Doyal v. Barnhart, 331 F.3d 758 (10th Cir.) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Branum v. Barnhart, 385 F.3d 1268 (10th Cir.) (substantial-evidence threshold)
- Washington v. Shalala, 37 F.3d 1437 (10th Cir.) (factors for mental RFC evaluation)
- Clifton v. Chater, 79 F.3d 1007 (10th Cir.) (ALJ must discuss uncontroverted or significantly probative evidence he rejects)
- Kepler v. Chater, 68 F.3d 387 (10th Cir.) (credibility findings must be affirmatively linked to substantial evidence)
- Talbot v. Heckler, 814 F.2d 1456 (10th Cir.) (ALJ must support finding that nonexertional limitations have negligible occupational effect)