Manning v. Social Security Administration
3:16-cv-00028
E.D. Ark.Dec 19, 2016Background
- Manning applied for SSDI with alleged onset September 4, 2012, after a stroke; ALJ denied benefits and Appeals Council denied review.
- ALJ found severe impairment: late effects of cerebrovascular accident, and assessed RFC for light work with the right upper extremity usable only as an assistive device and no overhead reaching, pushing, or pulling.
- At the hearing a vocational expert (VE) testified that Manning could perform jobs (DOT codes 206.367-014 and 299.677-010).
- The VE asserted consistency with the DOT, but the Selected Characteristics of Occupations (SCO) shows those jobs require frequent reaching.
- Consultative examiner Dr. Suzanne Gibbard documented memory and concentration deficits; Dr. Tim Shown documented decreased range of motion and strength in Manning’s right extremities.
- The ALJ did not discuss Dr. Gibbard’s mental findings and misstated Dr. Shown’s conclusions; the court found these errors warranted reversal and remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether VE testimony conflicted with DOT/SCO and whether the conflict was addressed | VE failed to reconcile jobs’ frequent reaching requirement with Manning’s RFC limiting right arm use | VE testified jobs were consistent with DOT; ALJ relied on VE’s assurance | Court: Error — ALJ/VE failed to identify or explain the conflict; DOT controls absent adequate VE explanation |
| Whether RFC was supported by substantial evidence | RFC ignored Dr. Gibbard’s cognitive limits and misstated Dr. Shown’s physical findings | ALJ implicitly relied on record to support RFC (no specific rebuttal in opinion) | Court: Error — ALJ failed to consider/discuss Dr. Gibbard and mischaracterized Dr. Shown; RFC not supported |
Key Cases Cited
- Montgomery v. Chater, 69 F.3d 273 (8th Cir. 1995) (DOT controls when VE testimony conflicts unless VE adequately rebuts)
- Miller v. Colvin, 784 F.3d 472 (8th Cir. 2015) (standard of review: substantial evidence and legal error)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971) (definition of substantial evidence on the record as a whole)