Kimberly Kepke v. Comm'r of Social Security
636 F. App'x 625
| 6th Cir. | 2016Background
- Kimberly Kepke filed two applications for DIB and SSI alleging disability beginning September 13, 2006; both were denied administratively and on appeal to the Appeals Council; she sued after the second denial and lost in district court.
- The ALJ found multiple severe impairments (hypertension, ADD, COPD, adjustment disorder with anxiety/depression, right knee replacement, obesity, L4-5 stenosis), concluded she could perform a restricted range of sedentary work with sit/stand option and many environmental and interaction limits, and identified surveillance-system monitor as accessible work.
- Kepke relied on treating opinions from psychiatrist Dr. Chapman and PCP Dr. Pinson asserting marked psychiatric and pulmonary limitations; ALJ gave those opinions little/limited weight.
- Non-examining state agency physicians (Drs. Balunas and Kuiper) and an examining state consultant (Dr. Bray) provided RFC opinions the ALJ adopted in part; ALJ addressed that some records were submitted after those opinions.
- Kepke challenged the ALJ’s treatment of treating-source opinions, non-examining opinions, step-two listing of thyroid disease, hypotheticals to the vocational expert (VE), evaluation of cervical MRI and carpal tunnel evidence, credibility findings, and denial of a sentence-six remand for additional records.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weight given to Dr. Chapman (psychiatrist) | ALJ improperly discounted treating psychiatrist’s checklist finding of marked limitations | ALJ reasonably discounted it as conclusory, based on limited visits, reliant on patient report, and inconsistent with treatment notes | Affirmed: ALJ gave "good reasons" and adequately explained discounting |
| Weight given to Dr. Pinson (PCP) | ALJ failed to give controlling/good weight to restrictive pulmonary and other limitations | ALJ reasonably found Pinson’s extreme limitations unsupported by conservative treatment, normal imaging, lack of corroborating treatment notes | Affirmed: substantial evidence supports discounting Pinson’s opinion |
| Reliance on non-examining state agency opinions | ALJ erred in adopting opinions that did not review later-submitted records and elevated them over treating opinions | ALJ considered the partial reviews, showed scrutiny, and non-examining opinions were consistent with record/other examiners | Affirmed: ALJ’s reliance was within the zone of reasonable choice |
| Omission of thyroid disease as a listed severe impairment at step two | ALJ should have listed thyroid disease as severe per prior ALJ decision/AR 98-4(6) | ALJ found other severe impairments and considered all impairments in later steps; prior listing did not mandate duplication | Affirmed: omission was legally irrelevant because other severe impairments were found and thyroid was considered |
| Hypotheticals to VE (sit/stand frequency; ventilation language; concentration limits) | Hypotheticals failed to capture specific sit/stand frequency, used imprecise exposure terms, and didn’t convey concentration limits | VE reduced jobs to clean environments and ALJ’s hypothetical included low-stress/simple-work limits; plaintiff’s counsel failed to probe at hearing | Affirmed: any imprecision was harmless; VE testimony still substantial evidence |
| Cervical stenosis / carpal tunnel combined effects | MRI and older carpal tunnel records require additional limitations beyond the RFC | MRI was considered; no treating opinion tying MRI to specific additional limitations; carpal tunnel evidence predated onset and RFC already limited lifting | Affirmed: no error in evaluating or combining these impairments |
| Credibility assessment | ALJ improperly discounted Kepke without considering reasonable explanations for missed appointments and other factors | ALJ relied on multiple credibility factors (inconsistencies, conservative treatment, mild imaging, lack of ER/hospitalization, refusal to use cane) | Affirmed: ALJ’s credibility findings supported by substantial evidence |
| Sentence-six remand for additional records (carpal tunnel) | District court should have remanded for consideration of post-hearing records | Records were not new (existed at hearing), plaintiff gave no good cause for late submission and strategy choice is not good cause | Affirmed: remand denied because evidence not new/material and no good cause |
Key Cases Cited
- Gentry v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 741 F.3d 708 (6th Cir. 2014) (standard of de novo review and substantial-evidence framework)
- Lindsley v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 560 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 2009) (definition of substantial evidence and "zone of choice")
- Wilson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541 (6th Cir. 2004) (treating-source rule and "good reasons" requirement)
- Rogers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234 (6th Cir. 2007) (deference presumptions for treating-source opinions)
- Drummond v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 126 F.3d 837 (6th Cir. 1997) (binding effect of prior ALJ findings absent new material evidence)
- Blackley v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399 (6th Cir. 2009) (ALJ must indicate consideration when relying on non-examining opinion that did not review full record)
- Ealy v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 594 F.3d 504 (6th Cir. 2010) (hypothetical must capture concrete concentration/persistence/pace limitations when supported by medical opinion)