Joseph Branon v. Commissioner of Social Security, 539 F. App'x 675

Background

Joseph Branon, a former telephone lineman, stopped working May 31, 2006 and filed for Social Security disability in Sept. 2006 due to degenerative disc disease and back pain.
Initial claim denied; district court remanded because the ALJ had not accounted for Branon’s change in age category (turned 50) during proceedings.
On remand the ALJ held a new hearing with a vocational expert (VE); ALJ found Branon had a limited range of light work with a nonexertional need to alternate sitting/standing every ~30 minutes and denied benefits. Appeals Council and district court affirmed denial.
Medical records: treating neurosurgeon Dr. McDonald (pre–May 31, 2006) imposed very restrictive limits (e.g., 5–15 lb limits, no >20 min in one position); later treating pain specialist Dr. Manchikanti noted greater functional capacity and provided injection therapy; claimant declined more aggressive treatment and later stopped injections/meds.
A nonexamining consulting physician (file review) concluded Branon could lift up to 50 lbs occasionally and stand/walk 6 of 8 hours; ALJ credited objective findings, conservative treatment choice, and claimant’s inconsistent statements to find substantial evidence for the RFC.
Because Branon’s RFC fell between sedentary and light (due to sit/stand need), the ALJ used the VE under SSR 83-12 to identify significant numbers of suitable jobs (e.g., information/desk clerk, some cashier positions) and relied on that testimony to deny benefits.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the ALJ’s RFC is supported by substantial evidence	Branon: ALJ ignored/took insufficient account of treating Dr. McDonald’s restrictive opinions and mischaracterized medical evidence	Commissioner: ALJ permissibly weighed records, noted many of Dr. McDonald’s opinions predate onset and lacked current corroboration; claimant’s conservative treatment and inconsistent reports undermine disabling claim	Held: RFC supported by substantial evidence; ALJ permissibly discounted/limited weight to Dr. McDonald’s outdated findings and relied on other records and claimant’s own reports
Whether ALJ misapplied medical-vocational "grids" and should have found disabled at age 50	Branon: grids should have been used "favorably" to find him disabled when he turned 50	Commissioner: RFC is between sedentary and light; grids do not apply squarely, so VE testimony under SSR 83-12 is required and was properly used	Held: ALJ correctly used VE under SSR 83-12 because RFC fell between grid categories; no error in declining to apply grids conclusively
Whether VE testimony was reliable to establish significant jobs	Branon: VE testimony is not credible to the extent it included jobs only partially compatible with RFC	Commissioner: VE was posed accurate hypotheticals including sit/stand limitation; identified significant numbers of jobs that permit alternating positions	Held: VE testimony was reliable and addressed the sit/stand limitation; ALJ properly relied on it
Whether any procedural inconsistency in RFC finding (arithmetic of sit/stand) was harmful	Branon: ALJ’s written RFC about hours sitting/standing contradicted the 30-minute alternation limitation	Commissioner: Hypotheticals to VE accurately described alternation; any verbal/written inconsistency was harmless	Held: Any internal inconsistency was harmless because the VE was given the correct hypotheticals and testified accordingly

Key Cases Cited

Crum v. Sullivan, 921 F.2d 642 (6th Cir. 1990) (standard of appellate review for SSA denials)
Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1971) (substantial-evidence review of administrative findings)
Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1987) (burden shifts to Commissioner at step five to show other work exists)
Anderson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., [citation="406 F. App'x 32"] (6th Cir. 2010) (VE testimony and SSR 83-12 application in cases with sit/stand limitations)