King v. Berryhill
2:16-cv-00610
E.D. Va.Dec 19, 2017Background
- Tonya King applied for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) alleging onset Feb. 7, 2013; last insured Dec. 31, 2014. ALJ denied benefits; Appeals Council declined review. Magistrate judge recommends affirming denial.
- Medical issues alleged: lumbar degenerative disc disease/spondylosis, knee and hand osteoarthritis, rheumatoid/polyarthralgias, hypothyroidism (Graves’ disease), hypertension, obesity; limited conservative treatment and gaps in specialty care due to lack of insurance.
- Treating provider Dr. Fedro submitted a check-box medical source statement and a letter stating King was ‘‘unable to work’’ and that cane use was necessary; state agency reviewers issued differing RFC opinions (initially light with no cane, reconsideration light with 4 hrs standing/walking).
- At hearing King testified to daily severe back/leg pain, use of a cane for ~3 years, standing 10–15 minutes, sitting 20–25 minutes, limited household activities; vocational expert identified some light jobs available for a person limited to 4 hours standing/walking.
- ALJ found severe impairments (including spine and hand/knee osteoarthritis), assigned RFC for light work limited to 4 hours standing/walking, no medically required cane, and concluded jobs exist in national economy; denied DIB.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ's RFC is supported by substantial evidence (including rejection of treating physician's opinions) | King: RFC is unsupported; ALJ wrongly discounted Dr. Fedro and earlier state opinions; cane and sedentary limits required | Commissioner: ALJ reasonably weighed opinions, discounted check-the-box treating opinion for lack of objective support, and RFC is actually more favorable than some state opinions | RFC endorsed — ALJ's assessment supported by substantial evidence; no reversible error in opinion weightings |
| Whether ALJ violated Albright by not giving controlling weight to prior ALJ's RFC | King: Prior ALJ's findings should have constrained new RFC or required more explanation given additional impairments | Commissioner: ALJ properly considered prior ALJ, gave it appropriate weight, evaluated intervening evidence and explained why RFC remained functionally equivalent | No Albright violation — ALJ adequately considered prior decision and intervening evidence |
| Whether ALJ failed to account for osteoarthritis of the hands in RFC (manipulative limits) | King: Severe hand osteoarthritis should yield manipulative limitations (handling/fingering) in RFC | Commissioner: Medical record and reviewers did not identify manipulative limitations; exams showed full finger ROM and hand x-rays normal | No error — substantial evidence supports no additional hand-manipulation limits |
| Whether ALJ erred in rejecting need for cane | King: Cane was medically necessary and relied on by treating sources and claimant testimony | Commissioner: Only Dr. Fedro/letter endorsed cane without adequate objective linkage; ALJ cited exam findings, imaging, conservative treatment, and lack of prescription for cane | No error — ALJ permissibly gave little weight to cane opinion and incorporated functional limits (4-hr standing) without prescribing cane use |
Key Cases Cited
- Bird v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 699 F.3d 337 (4th Cir.) (standard: ALJ decisions upheld if supported by substantial evidence)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1971) (defines substantial evidence standard)
- Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585 (4th Cir.) (ALJ factfinding and credibility determinations not for court to reweigh)
- Albright v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 174 F.3d 473 (4th Cir.) (guidance on treating prior ALJ findings in subsequent claims)
- Lively v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 820 F.2d 1391 (4th Cir.) (illustration of res judicata/substantial evidence concerns in successive claims)
- McDaniel v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 1026 (11th Cir.) (step-two severity is a low threshold)