Libecap v. Commissioner of Social Security, 3:16-cv-00374

Background

Plaintiff Michael L. Libecap, Sr. applied for DIB and SSI alleging onset May 11, 2013, citing degenerative disc disease, non-epileptic seizures, cognitive disorder, depression, and anxiety.
After initial denial he testified at an ALJ hearing; ALJ Paul Armstrong found him not disabled (relying on an RFC for a reduced range of medium work) and the Appeals Council denied review.
A November 2014 neuropsychological exam by Dr. Nicholas Doninger found severe-to-profound memory impairment, moderate-to-severe word-finding/familiarity deficits, and severe depression/anxiety; recommended structured, repetitive supports but offered no specific work-capacity opinions.
The ALJ relied on aspects of Dr. Doninger’s recommendations to discount Plaintiff’s testimony about memory-related limitations, and adopted an RFC without obtaining a medical source opinion translating the neurocognitive findings into concrete work restrictions.
The magistrate judge concluded the ALJ misapplied Dr. Doninger’s report (treating it as undermining credibility) and that the RFC lacked substantial evidentiary support absent medical opinion tying cognitive test results to work-related functional limits.
Recommendation: reverse the Commissioner’s non-disability finding and remand for further proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), with instructions to reassess credibility and obtain medical source opinions about cognitive functional limitations.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ALJ properly assessed Plaintiff’s credibility regarding cognitive limitations	Libecap argues ALJ improperly discounted his memory-related testimony by misreading Dr. Doninger’s report	Commissioner relied on ALJ’s credibility finding based in part on Dr. Doninger’s treatment suggestions	ALJ erred: Doninger’s findings support, not undermine, Plaintiff’s credibility about severe memory deficits
Whether ALJ’s RFC is supported by substantial evidence given cognitive findings	Libecap contends RFC lacks support because no medical opinion translated neuropsychological deficits into work limitations	Commissioner contends RFC is supported by record as a whole and reviewing psychologists’ opinions	RFC unsupported: absent medical source opinion linking Doninger’s abnormal test results to work-related limitations, RFC is not based on substantial evidence
Whether remand or immediate benefits is appropriate	Libecap seeks relief based on errors	Commissioner argues record supports denial or remand for limited proceedings	Remand ordered for further proceedings (not immediate award) because evidence of disability is not overwhelming
Whether ALJ properly weighed examining psychologist’s report	Libecap says ALJ mischaracterized/exaggerated report’s recommendations to downplay impairments	Commissioner defends ALJ’s reliance on report for credibility and RFC	Court finds ALJ stretched report, mischaracterized it, and failed to account for its findings adequately

Key Cases Cited

Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (explains substantial-evidence standard in administrative proceedings)
Buxton v. Halter, 246 F.3d 762 (describes ALJ’s "zone of choice" and review limits)
Rogers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234 (ALJ is primary evaluator of witness credibility)
Jones v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 336 F.3d 469 (deference to ALJ credibility findings because of demeanor advantage)
Rabbers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 582 F.3d 647 (legal error can require reversal even if substantial evidence exists)
Bowen v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 478 F.3d 742 (administrative errors that prejudice claimant require reversal)
Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89 (court’s authority to remand or reverse under § 405(g))
Faucher v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 17 F.3d 171 (benefits may be awarded immediately only when record is fully developed)