Joyce Jones v. Michael Astrue, Commissioner
691 F.3d 730
5th Cir.2012Background
- Jones sought DIB and SSI; ALJ denied DIB but SSI awarded; district court upheld; Jones last insured on Dec 31, 2005; hearing held Jun 2007; RFC before Apr 16, 2007 allowed greater lifting and standing; post-Apr 16, 2007 RFC limited; ALJ found no disability before Apr 16, 2007 but disability after; vocational expert used to find other jobs; Jones not disabled under last insured date.
- Record contained hundreds of pages from Jones’s medical history and 93 pages from seven physicians; treating physician Henry Young provided a two-page checklist; ALJ discounted Young’s checklist as conclusional; record contained MRI (2005) and x-rays (2006) relied upon by ALJ; Jones acknowledged some daily activities.
- Regulatory framework required recontact only if evidence is inadequate to determine disability; substantial evidence supports ALJ’s decision; other treating sources existed; record was sufficient to determine disability status; error, if any, was harmless.
- Jones argues ALJ should have recontacted Young to obtain more records; Commissioner argues there was sufficient evidence from other sources; no duty to recontact given the record is adequate to determine disability; multiple treating sources can suffice to determine disability.
- The court affirms; ALJ was not required to recontact Young; even if required, any error was not prejudicial and harmless given extensive corroborating medical evidence and other records.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to recontact treating physician | Jones: ALJ must recontact Young | Commissioner: record sufficient; no duty | Not required; error harmless |
| Prejudice from failure to recontact | Jones: records could change result | Commissioner: no showing of potential change | No prejudicial error shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Carey v. Apfel, 230 F.3d 131 (5th Cir. 2000) (burden to show prejudice for record-development failures)
- Brock v. Chater, 84 F.3d 726 (5th Cir. 1996) (procedural perfection not required if substantive rights not affected)
- Greenspan v. Shalala, 38 F.3d 232 (5th Cir. 1994) (proper standard for substantial evidence review)
- Audler v. Astrue, 501 F.3d 446 (5th Cir. 2007) (record development duties when treating sources exist)
- Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396 (2009) (burden on challenger to show that error is harmful)