Lisa Dunn v. Carolyn Colvin
607 F. App'x 264
4th Cir.2015Background
- Lisa Dunn applied for Disability Insurance Benefits alleging rheumatoid arthritis, fibromyalgia, headaches, depression, and anxiety; appeal focuses on psychiatric impairments.
- ALJ found Dunn not engaged in substantial gainful activity, had several severe impairments, did not meet listings, and could not return to past work but retained RFC for a limited range of light work.
- Treating sources included psychiatrist Dr. John Swing and counselor Betty Gosnell; non‑examining state psychologist Dr. Sandra Francis and examiner Dr. Martha Merrion also reviewed the record.
- Dr. Swing and Gosnell provided opinions indicating marked to severe workplace limitations; Dr. Francis and Dr. Merrion opined Dunn could perform simple, routine work with limited public contact.
- ALJ assigned limited weight to Swing’s and Gosnell’s opinions (finding them inconsistent with treatment notes), significant weight to Dr. Francis, and gave Dunn limited credibility partly because her treatment was "routine and conservative" and she had medication non‑compliance issues.
- District court affirmed the Commissioner; the Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding the ALJ’s determinations were supported by substantial evidence and applied correct legal standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ erred by not giving treating physicians' opinions controlling weight | Dunn: ALJ should have given controlling weight to treating psychiatrist and counselor | SSA: ALJ permissibly discounted treating opinions as internally inconsistent and inconsistent with other record evidence | Affirmed — substantial evidence supports ALJ's limited weight to treating opinions |
| Whether ALJ improperly considered conservative treatment in credibility finding | Dunn: "Conservative treatment" is vague and improperly used; cannot discredit noncompliance without showing motive or connection | SSA: ALJ may consider treatment type and noncompliance under regulations and SSRs; these factors undermine credibility | Affirmed — ALJ permissibly considered conservative treatment and noncompliance as part of credibility analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585 (4th Cir. 1996) (two‑step pain/symptom credibility framework and role of objective evidence)
- Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650 (4th Cir. 2005) (ALJ discretion in weighing evidence; not to reweigh conflicts)
- Mastro v. Apfel, 270 F.3d 171 (4th Cir. 2001) (ALJ may give less weight to treating opinion when contrary evidence is persuasive)
- Hancock v. Astrue, 667 F.3d 470 (4th Cir. 2012) (substantial evidence standard for reviewing ALJ findings)
- Clarke v. Bowen, 843 F.2d 271 (8th Cir. 1988) (substantial evidence standard and administrative "zone of choice")