Slip Opinion
S.D. Miss.Sep 28, 2022Background
- Plaintiff Rhonda L. Lafontaine applied for Disability Insurance Benefits after a 2016 stroke, alleging onset date January 27, 2016.
- ALJ found claimant met insured status, identified severe impairments (left homonymous hemianopsia, obesity, borderline intellectual functioning, anxiety, depression), but did not meet or equal a Listing.
- ALJ assessed RFC: light work with avoidance of hazards, limited to simple, routine tasks, no more than occasional public/coworker interaction, and no driving; concluded claimant could perform jobs existing in significant numbers.
- Consultative psychologist Ethel Hetrick evaluated Lafontaine in 2016 (opined she could perform routine, repetitive tasks) and again in 2019 (qualified that she could not do so in a "competitive work setting" due to memory/processing/anxiety); ALJ mistakenly attributed the 2019 competitive-work language to the 2016 report but ultimately found both Hetrick opinions unpersuasive.
- Magistrate Judge Myers recommended affirming the Commissioner, characterizing the ALJ’s conflation of the two Hetrick reports as a drafting error; Lafontaine objected, arguing the ALJ failed properly to weigh Hetrick’s opinions.
- District Court conducted de novo review of the objections, adopted the R&R, overruled Lafontaine’s objections, and affirmed the Commissioner’s final decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ erred in evaluating Dr. Hetrick’s opinions / whether conflation of 2016 and 2019 reports was harmless | ALJ confused the two reports and thus failed to properly weigh Hetrick’s opinions, making the RFC unsupported | ALJ adequately evaluated supportability and consistency under the regs; the conflation was a drafting error and did not change the outcome | Court held the conflation was a harmless drafting error and the ALJ adequately explained why Hetrick’s opinions were unpersuasive |
| Whether the RFC is supported by substantial evidence | RFC omitted Hetrick’s competitive-work limitation and thus understates limitations | Other examiners’ opinions (Prosser, Powers, Saddler) and objective evidence support the RFC limiting to simple, routine tasks | Court held the RFC is supported by substantial evidence and affirmed denial of benefits |
Key Cases Cited
- Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419 (5th Cir. 1987) (objections to R&R must specifically identify contested findings)
- Raddatz v. United States, 447 U.S. 667 (1980) (scope of de novo review of magistrate judge’s recommendations)
- Falco v. Shalala, 27 F.3d 160 (5th Cir. 1994) (standard for reviewing denial of social security benefits)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Bowling v. Shalala, 36 F.3d 431 (5th Cir. 1994) (court may not reweigh evidence or substitute its judgment for the Commissioner)
- Harrell v. Bowen, 862 F.2d 471 (5th Cir. 1988) (substantial evidence requires more than a scintilla)
- Mays v. Bowen, 837 F.2d 1362 (5th Cir. 1988) (procedural perfection in administrative proceedings not required)
- Perez v. Heckler, 777 F.2d 298 (5th Cir. 1985) (ALJ responsible for assessing medical evidence and determining RFC)
- Kneeland v. Berryhill, 850 F.3d 749 (5th Cir. 2017) (RFC must consider all relevant evidence)
- Masterson v. Barnhart, 309 F.3d 267 (5th Cir. 2002) (conflicts in evidence are for the Commissioner to resolve)