K. Leeman v. Commissioner of Social Securit
449 F. App'x 496
6th Cir.2011Background
- In February 2005, Leeman’s parents sought disability benefits after consulting a psychologist and Dr. Tokhie diagnosed ADHD and ODD.
- School records from 2005–2008 show ongoing behavioral and academic problems, with some notes of improvement.
- ALJ issued decision in July 2008, finding Leeman had more than minimal functional limitations but not marked limitations in two domains.
- The ALJ discounted Dr. Tokhie’s opinion that Leeman had marked limitations in three domains, citing inconsistency with record notes of stability and improvement.
- Dr. Tokhie’s treatment notes described good concentration, coherent behavior, and improving academic performance.
- Other consultants, including Dr. Jeter (consulting) and Dr. Liu, offered differing assessments, with Liu later opining no marked limitations.
- The district court affirmed the ALJ’s decision to discount Tokhie’s opinion, and Leeman appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the ALJ properly discount treating physician Tokhie’s opinion? | Leeman argues Tokhie’s opinion should be given controlling weight as a treating physician. | ALJ reasonably discounted Tokhie’s opinion as inconsistent with substantial record evidence and notes. | Yes; substantial evidence supported discounting Tokhie’s opinion. |
| Was the ALJ correct in determining only one domain was marked? | Tokhie’s assessment of marked limitations in three domains should drive benefits eligibility. | Record evidence supported only one domain being markedly limited, the rest not meeting the threshold. | Yes; ALJ’s determination of one marked domain was upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Francis v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 414 F. App’x 802 (6th Cir. 2011) (treating-physician opinions may be discounted when inconsistent with substantial evidence)
- Payne v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 402 F. App’x 109 (6th Cir. 2010) (ALJ may discount treating-physician evidence supported by treatment notes)
- Gaskins v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 280 F. App’x 472 (6th Cir. 2008) (support for discounting treating opinions when inconsistent with record)
- Heston v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 245 F.3d 528 (6th Cir. 2008) (adult limitations context; reference to functional domain analysis)