Lorraine Dellapolla v. Commissioner Social Security
662 F. App'x 158
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- Dellapolla applied for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) on Dec. 31, 2006, alleging disability from Aug. 15, 1995; an ALJ initially denied benefits and Appeals Council remanded after district-court proceedings.
- The ALJ consolidated a 2013 application with the earlier record, held a hearing on July 11, 2013, and issued a partially favorable decision on Sept. 20, 2013.
- The ALJ found multiple severe impairments (hip bursitis/degenerative joint disease, lumbar degenerative disc disease, osteoporosis, carpal tunnel, wrist tendinitis history, prior surgeries, peripheral vascular disease) but not meeting a Listing.
- The ALJ assigned an RFC for a limited range of sedentary work (sit up to 6 hours with sit/stand option; stand/walk ≤2 hours; lift/carry ≤10 lbs; limitations on climbing, stooping, kneeling, reaching overhead with right arm, and pushing/pulling with lower extremities).
- The ALJ concluded Dellapolla was not disabled prior to June 22, 2012 (RFC allowed work in national economy) but became disabled as of June 22, 2012 due to age-category change.
- The District Court affirmed; Dellapolla appealed, raising primarily that the ALJ failed to give controlling weight to treating physician Dr. Kain and contesting the VE testimony (the latter was dropped on appeal). The Third Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ erred in weighing treating physician Dr. Kain’s opinion | ALJ should have given controlling/greater weight to Dr. Kain due to his expertise and long treatment history; his limitations (standing/walking <2 hrs; lifting ≤10 lbs; pain affecting concentration) should control | ALJ credited portions of Dr. Kain’s opinion supported by the record, incorporated standing/walking and lifting limits into RFC, and reasonably discounted other aspects (e.g., no sitting-duration opinion; pain-concentration contradicted by claimant statements and records) | Affirmed: ALJ permissibly weighed Dr. Kain’s opinion, gave weight where supported, and provided extensive discussion supporting RFC determination |
| Whether ALJ failed to discuss treating physician’s specialization/years treating claimant | ALJ omitted mention of specialization/years and one line on concentration interference | ALJ not required to cite every treatment note; substantial-record discussion sufficed and the omitted line was contradicted by claimant's own statements | Affirmed: omission was not reversible error; ALJ’s analysis was comprehensive and supported by substantial evidence |
| Whether substantial evidence supports finding of non-disability prior to 6/22/2012 | RFC and credibility findings do not reflect full severity; other doctors’ opinions and records were allegedly undervalued (some arguments raised for first time on appeal) | ALJ’s RFC based on record review, consistency findings, and incorporated supported treating-doctor limitations; new arguments not raised below are forfeited | Affirmed: substantial evidence supports ALJ’s pre-6/22/2012 finding; appellate court declines to consider issues not raised below |
| Whether appellate court should consider issues not raised in district court | N/A (Plaintiff attempted to raise additional challenges on appeal) | General rule: appellate courts normally do not consider issues not passed on below; no exceptional circumstances warranting review | Affirmed: court refused to consider newly raised arguments on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Califano, 637 F.2d 968 (3d Cir. 1981) (defines substantial evidence standard)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1971) (discusses substantial evidence in administrative proceedings)
- Rutherford v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 546 (3d Cir. 2005) (scope of appellate review of ALJ disability findings)
- Sykes v. Apfel, 228 F.3d 259 (3d Cir. 2000) (summary of the five-step disability evaluation process)
- Fargnoli v. Massanari, 247 F.3d 34 (3d Cir. 2001) (ALJ not required to reference every treatment note)
- Selected Risks Ins. Co. v. Bruno, 718 F.2d 67 (3d Cir. 1983) (appellate courts generally do not consider issues not passed upon below)