596 F. App'x 387
6th Cir.2015Background
- Lester applied for disability insurance and SSI benefits alleging disability beginning May 10, 2003; initial ALJ denial in 2007 was affirmed by district court.
- Lester filed a new DIB application in 2008; after administrative denial the district court remanded for further proceedings.
- Following a second hearing the ALJ again denied benefits; district court affirmed and Lester appealed.
- Lester argued the ALJ erred by (1) relying on the 2007 RFC, (2) discounting treating physician Dr. Perry’s opinion, (3) failing to find him illiterate, and (4) posing improper hypotheticals to the vocational expert (VE).
- The ALJ relied on treatment notes, other medical evidence (including exam by Dr. Chavez), and Lester’s reported daily activities to discount Dr. Perry and to adopt an RFC limiting him to simple, non-public, object-focused work.
- The Sixth Circuit reviewed legal standards de novo and substantial-evidence findings for support, and affirmed the district court’s judgment denying benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reliance on prior RFC | Lester: new/more severe impairments made 2007 RFC outdated | ALJ/SSA: no evidence of significant decline; 2007 RFC still supported | Affirmed — reliance proper under Drummond where no contrary evidence showed deterioration |
| Weight to treating physician | Lester: ALJ improperly discounted Dr. Perry’s opinion of marked limitations | ALJ/SSA: Dr. Perry’s opinion conflicted with his own notes, other records, and conservative treatment | Affirmed — ALJ gave good reasons; opinion inconsistent with record so not controlling |
| Illiteracy finding | Lester: should be deemed illiterate (cannot read/write simple messages) | ALJ/SSA: record shows Lester could read/understand English and write beyond name; could read portions of correspondence | Affirmed — substantial evidence supports ALJ’s conclusion that Lester is not illiterate |
| VE hypothetical adequacy | Lester: ALJ omitted moderate deficits in concentration/persistence/pace and very low general learning ability | ALJ/SSA: hypotheticals included one–two-step, non-public, object-focused limits; no evidence to show bottom 10th percentile learning | Affirmed — hypothetical adequately captured credible limits; no basis to include bottom-10% learning ability |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakley v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399 (6th Cir. 2009) (standard of review; substantial-evidence framework)
- Drummond v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 126 F.3d 837 (6th Cir. 1997) (prior ALJ findings binding absent evidence of deterioration)
- Gayheart v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365 (6th Cir. 2013) (treating-source opinion controlling only if supported and consistent; ALJ must give good reasons to discount)
- Ealy v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 594 F.3d 504 (6th Cir. 2010) (VE testimony admissible only if hypothetical accurately portrays claimant’s impairments)
- Casey v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 987 F.2d 1230 (6th Cir. 1993) (ALJ need only include credible limitations in hypotheticals)
- Bell v. Barnhardt, 148 F. App’x 277 (6th Cir. 2005) (evidence of ability to read and write can defeat claim of illiteracy)