Kniffen v. Social Security Admin
2:14-cv-10106
E.D. Mich.Jan 12, 2015Background
- Plaintiff Dawn Kniffen applied for DIB and SSI alleging disability from bipolar disorder, ADHD, and anxiety; ALJ denied benefits and Appeals Council denied review. Case was referred for a Report & Recommendation recommending remand.
- Administrative hearing: Plaintiff (then represented) testified to mood swings (manic and depressive episodes), concentration problems, attendance/performance issues leading to job loss; medications included Lamictal, Ativan, Vyvanse, Wellbutrin.
- Treatment records were mixed: several treating notes described mood stability on medication (GAFs ranging from 72 to 45), while consultative exam and state-reviewer found more severe concentrational and social deficits (GAF 41–50; moderate limitations).
- ALJ found severe impairments of affective disorder and alcoholism, assessed RFC for full range of work at all exertional levels but with only mild limitations in concentration, persistence, and pace, and concluded Plaintiff could perform semiskilled jobs (cashier, retail sales clerk, telephone solicitor).
- Magistrate Judge recommended remand for further administrative proceedings because the ALJ’s hypothetical and RFC did not account for the ALJ’s own finding of moderate limitations in social functioning and there were inconsistencies in how concentration limitations were characterized.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the VE hypothetical and RFC adequately accounted for the ALJ's finding of moderate social-functioning limitations | Kniffen argued ALJ found moderate social limitations and those were omitted from the RFC/hypothetical, so VE's jobs may be invalid | Commissioner relied on VE testimony to support nondisability finding based on RFC with only mild concentrational limits | Court: Remand required because VE was not asked about moderate social limitations that could preclude frequent public interaction required by cited jobs |
| Whether substantial evidence supports ALJ's assessment of concentration, persistence, or pace as only "mild" | Kniffen pointed to consultative examiner and state reviewer who found significant/moderate concentrational deficits and argued ALJ erred in minimizing them | Commissioner pointed to treating notes showing periods of stability and some treating providers finding improvement | Court: ALJ's mild finding is not strongly supported given contrary medical opinions; inconsistency warrants further development on remand |
| Whether records showing no specialized mental-health care before Sept 2009 justify discounting earlier symptoms | Kniffen said she tried to obtain treatment earlier and was referred to clinics she could not access | Commissioner relied on gap in specialized treatment as one factor undermining credibility/severity | Court: ALJ's factual assertion that she did not seek care is questionable given record showing referral and inability to obtain treatment; this undermines weight of that reason |
| Remedy: remand for further proceedings or immediate award of benefits | Kniffen sought reversal/remand; argued errors require relief | Commissioner opposed benefits award, relying on evidentiary conflicts | Held: Remand for further administrative proceedings (not an immediate award of benefits) because errors are important but record not overwhelming in favor of disability |
Key Cases Cited
- Cotton v. Sullivan, 2 F.3d 692 (6th Cir.) (courts may only consider new evidence on a sentence-six remand showing materiality and good cause)
- Faucher v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 17 F.3d 171 (6th Cir.) (errors requiring remand do not automatically justify an award of benefits absent an overwhelming record)
- Varley v. Commissioner of Health and Human Services, 820 F.2d 777 (6th Cir.) (hypothetical to VE must accurately portray claimant’s impairments)
- Webb v. Commissioner of Social Security, 368 F.3d 629 (6th Cir.) (hypothetical should include an accurate portrayal of claimant’s physical and mental impairments)
- Mullen v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 535 (6th Cir.) (substantial-evidence review recognizes a zone of choice for administrative decisionmakers)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (U.S.) (definition of substantial evidence standard)