Lackner v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 1:21-cv-00270

Background

Plaintiff Nicole Lackner applied for SSI on March 14, 2019, alleging lupus, PNES/seizures, Raynaud’s, chronic pain, migraines, anxiety/PTSD, and related functional limitations; she has no past relevant work and is a younger individual with limited education.
Administrative record includes multiple ER visits, an EMU admission suggesting PNES (no epileptiform EEG), rheumatology treatment diagnosing systemic lupus erythematosus, and a June 22, 2020 treating rheumatologist opinion (Dr. Warren) imposing significant exertional, postural, manipulative, environmental, and additional-rest limitations.
A consultative psychological exam (Dr. Janco‑Gidley) and state agency reviewers assessed moderate mental limits but the state reviewers’ physical opinions predated Dr. Warren’s 2020 opinion.
At the July 14, 2020 hearing a vocational expert testified that a claimant limited to the ALJ’s RFC (light work with simple, non‑fastpaced tasks and certain environmental/postural limits) could perform jobs in the national economy, but more restrictive limitations (per Dr. Warren) would eliminate work.
The ALJ adopted an RFC for light work with specific nonexertional restrictions and gave Dr. Warren’s June 2020 opinion only “limited persuasive value,” relying principally on an earlier examination showing good passive ROM; the ALJ denied benefits.
The Magistrate Judge found the ALJ erred in evaluating Dr. Warren’s opinion because the ALJ’s rationale did not address the actual bases for Dr. Warren’s restrictions (tenderness, paresthesia, Raynaud’s, discoloration, headaches) and relied on an almost year‑old exam to contradict the 2020 opinion; the decision was vacated and remanded for further explanation. The court declined to rule on other claimed errors.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the ALJ properly evaluated treating rheumatologist Dr. Warren’s medical opinion under the SSA’s revised opinion rules	Lackner: ALJ improperly discounted Dr. Warren by focusing on limited ROM from an earlier exam and failing to address the other clinical bases (tenderness, paresthesia, Raynaud’s, discoloration, headaches) for the limitations	Commissioner: ALJ permissibly found the opinion only ‘‘limited’’ because it was inconsistent with clinical findings and other record evidence; ALJ need not afford controlling weight under the revised rules	Court: Remand. ALJ’s explanation did not build a logical bridge—he misstated/oversimplified the basis for Dr. Warren’s restrictions and relied on an older exam without addressing the 2020 findings and stated bases, requiring further explanation on remand
Whether new and material evidence warrants remand	Lackner: asserted new medical evidence supports disability and requires remand under sentence six	Commissioner: opposed	Court: Not reached (court remanded on the first issue and declined to address additional assignments of error for judicial economy)

Key Cases Cited

Kirk v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 667 F.2d 524 (6th Cir. 1981) (describing the SSI disability framework)
Abbott v. Sullivan, 905 F.2d 918 (6th Cir. 1990) (discussing the five‑step disability evaluation)
Ealy v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 594 F.3d 504 (6th Cir. 2010) (same; court’s review of ALJ findings)
White v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 572 F.3d 272 (6th Cir. 2009) (ALJ must apply correct legal standards and articulate reasons)
Rogers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234 (6th Cir. 2007) (substantial evidence standard defined)
Mullen v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 535 (6th Cir. 1986) (existence of a zone of choice for the Commissioner)
Bowen v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 478 F.3d 742 (6th Cir. 2007) (agency must follow its own regulations; legal error warrants reversal)
Fleischer v. Astrue, 774 F. Supp. 2d 875 (N.D. Ohio 2011) (ALJ must build an accurate, logical bridge between evidence and conclusions)
SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194 (1947) (courts may not supply post‑hoc rationalizations for agency decisions)