LaBona v. Commissioner of Social Security
5:23-cv-00035-DCR
| E.D. Ky. | Jun 29, 2023Background
- Plaintiff Emily LaBona applied for Supplemental Security Income in 2021; alleged onset of disability 2009 and had two prior denied applications (2016, 2018).
- A 2016 exam by Dr. Cristi Hundley found moderate-to-marked mental/workplace limitations; plaintiff did not appeal the 2016 denial.
- State-agency reviewers in 2021 found moderate mental limitations but initially assessed capacity for medium work; ALJ found medium exertional opinions unpersuasive based on newer evidence.
- ALJ Karen R. Jackson found severe impairments (bilateral knee DJD, degenerative disc disease, right ankle post‑surgery, major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder) and assessed an RFC for light work with mental limitations.
- Vocational expert testified jobs existed the claimant could perform (garment sorter, housekeeper, retail marker); Appeals Council denied review and the district court affirmed the Commissioner.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of ALJ's explanation for rejecting Dr. Hundley (2016) | LaBona: ALJ failed to adequately explain why Hundley’s opinion was unpersuasive and omitted its restrictions | ALJ: Hundley’s opinion was remote and inconsistent with more recent medical/therapy records; not controlling for the 2021 claim | Court: ALJ gave sufficient, specific reasons (remoteness and inconsistency) and enabled meaningful review; opinion could be found unpersuasive on consistency grounds |
| Effect of prior unappealed 2016 denial | LaBona: prior exam/opinion should be given weight for current claim | Defendant: prior denial was final for that application; ALJ not bound to adopt prior opinion absent controlling rule | Court: ALJ was not required to adopt the earlier decision; properly considered subsequent evidence and decline to credit 2016 opinion |
| RFC support by substantial evidence | LaBona: RFC omitted limitations reflected in Hundley’s opinion | Defendant: RFC grounded in recent orthopedic exams, PT notes, mental‑health records and VE testimony | Court: Substantial evidence (exams, PT, therapy notes, VE) supports the light‑work RFC |
| Application of 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c factors | LaBona: ALJ did not adequately apply or explain the supportability/consistency analysis | Defendant: ALJ addressed supportability and consistency and relied on the most important factors with specific record citations | Court: ALJ properly applied § 416.920c, explained consideration of supportability/consistency sufficiently for review |
Key Cases Cited
- Island Creek Ky. Mining v. Ramage, 737 F.3d 1050 (6th Cir. 2013) (substantial‑evidence review requires correct application of law and support in the record)
- Rogers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234 (6th Cir. 2007) (framework for reviewing ALJ disability determinations)
- Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197 (U.S. 1938) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148 (U.S. 2019) (clarifies the substantial‑evidence threshold)
- Cruse v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 502 F.3d 532 (6th Cir. 2007) (definition of disability under the Social Security Act)
- Combs v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 459 F.3d 640 (6th Cir. 2006) (five‑step sequential evaluation process)
- Jones v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 336 F.3d 469 (6th Cir. 2003) (burden shifts to Commissioner at step five)
- Drummond v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 126 F.3d 837 (6th Cir. 1997) (effect of prior ALJ findings on later proceedings)
- Duncan v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 801 F.2d 847 (6th Cir. 1986) (finality of prior application denials)