Lee v. Colvin
6:13-cv-03189
W.D. Mo.Jul 30, 2014Background
- Plaintiff Rebecca Lee sought disability benefits under Titles II and XVI; the Commissioner denied benefits and final review rested with the Appeals Council.
- The SSA Ethical five-step sequential process governed the disability analysis; the ALJ found plaintiff not disabled.
- Plaintiff argued the ALJ erred in addressing substance abuse impact and in weighing psychologists’ and a psychotherapist’s opinions; Appeals Council denial of remand for new evidence was contested.
- Amended onset date to June 1, 2011; substantial earnings in 2009-2010; ALJ concluded disability would not exist if substance use ceased.
- The ALJ found the substance-use disorder material to disability; under abstinence, plaintiff could perform simple work; overall record substantial evidence supported denial.
- Court denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and affirmed the Commissioner’s decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Materiality of substance-use disorder | Lee would remain disabled without substance use | Materiality proper under 20 C.F.R.; abstinence changes disability | Substance-use disorder material; disability not established during abstinence |
| Weight of medical opinion evidence | Opinions of Dr. Wilson, Dr. McGehee, Breckner should be weighted. | ALJ properly weighed opinions per 20 C.F.R. and SSRs | ALJ properly weighed opinions with adequate justification |
| Appeals Council new evidence | AC should remand for new evidence consideration | AC properly denied remand; record still supports denial | No reversible error; substantial evidence supports ALJ’s decision including new evidence |
| RFC and step analysis with abstinence | RFC should reflect all impairments including substance abuse | RFC properly limited with abstinence scenario | RFC supports non-disability when substance use is abstained |
| Credibility and symptom exaggeration | Lee’s symptoms credible despite abuse history | ALJ properly found exaggeration and inconsistent with record | Substantial evidence supported credibility findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1971) (substantial evidence standard requires review of whole record)
- Mittlestead v. Apfel, 204 F.3d 847 (8th Cir. 2000) (substantial evidence sufficiency test applies)
- Johnson v. Chater, 108 F.3d 178 (8th Cir. 1997) (scope of substantial evidence review)
- Andler v. Chater, 100 F.3d 1389 (8th Cir. 1996) (zone of choice in substantial evidence review)
- Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474 (U.S. 1951) (focus on weight of evidence requires full record review)
- Wilcutts v. Apfel, 143 F.3d 1134 (8th Cir. 1998) (balancing conflicting evidence in disability review)
- Dukes v. Barnhart, 436 F.3d 923 (8th Cir. 2006) (credibility determinations remain with ALJ)
- Cox v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 614 (8th Cir. 2007) (ALJ not required to rely on any particular physician's opinion in RFC assessment)
- Martise v. Astrue, 641 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 2011) (ALJ may synthesize medical and other evidence in RFC)
- Kitts v. Apfel, 204 F.3d 785 (8th Cir. 2000) (new evidence considered when evaluating Appeals Council denial)