Margaret Shinaberry v. Andrew Saul
952 F.3d 113
| 4th Cir. | 2020Background
- Margaret Shinaberry applied for Social Security disability benefits in 2013, claiming back and left-shoulder impairments and lifelong learning disorder (borderline intellectual functioning).
- SSA medical consultants found she could perform light work with occasional postural limits; psychological consultants found borderline intellectual functioning and moderate limitations in concentration, persistence, or pace; Dr. Kenneth Burlingame performed a consultative psychological exam.
- The ALJ found severe impairments (including borderline intellectual functioning), adopted a light-work RFC with additional limits (no ladders/ropes/scaffolds; occasional ramps/stairs, balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, crawl; limited left overhead reach; occasional foot controls) and restricted mental demands to simple, routine, repetitive tasks.
- A vocational expert testified that, under that RFC, Shinaberry could not do past work but could work as a Sales Attendant or Order Clerk; the ALJ denied benefits and the district court affirmed.
- On appeal Shinaberry challenged (1) the mental-RFC handling of moderate limitations in concentration/persistence/pace, (2) the physical-RFC credibility findings and the ALJ’s treatment of a PA’s restrictive opinion, (3) omission of a sit/stand option and failure to order further development, and (4) (later) an alleged DOT conflict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ failed to account for moderate limitations in concentration, persistence, or pace in the RFC/hypothetical | Shinaberry: Mascio requires the ALJ to either incorporate or explain omission of step-three moderate limitations in the RFC and hypothetical to the VE. | SSA: ALJ explained why the step-three finding translated into a restriction to simple, routine, repetitive tasks and included that limitation in the VE hypothetical. | Affirmed: ALJ adequately explained linkage from psychological evidence to RFC; limitation to simple, routine, repetitive tasks accounted for the moderate limitations. |
| Whether ALJ erred by discounting PA Kristina Matthews’s lifting opinion and by finding Shinaberry not fully credible; whether a sit/stand option was required | Shinaberry: ALJ improperly gave little weight to Matthews’s statement that she could not lift >10 pounds and wrongly discredited her testimony; sit/stand needed. | SSA: Matthews’s opinion was brief, unexplained, inconsistent with treatment records; credibility findings are supported; no medical evidence supported sit/stand. | Affirmed: ALJ permissibly gave Matthews’s opinion little weight and made supported credibility findings; no sit/stand required absent medical support. |
| Whether ALJ should have further developed the record (consultative orthopedist or interrogatories) or reweighed evidence | Shinaberry: ALJ should have ordered further evaluation or sought orthopedic clarification before deciding. | SSA: Administrative record was adequate; ALJ applied proper standards and may resolve conflicts without ordering more development. | Affirmed: Court finds no duty to further develop here; ALJ built a logical bridge from evidence to RFC. |
| Whether ALJ failed to resolve a conflict between VE testimony and the DOT | Shinaberry: (raised on appeal) VE testimony conflicted with DOT and ALJ failed to reconcile. | SSA: Issue was not raised below. | Waived: Court refused to consider because it was not raised in district court and asserted first in reply brief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mascio v. Colvin, 780 F.3d 632 (4th Cir. 2015) (ALJ must explain if step-three moderate limitations in concentration, persistence, or pace do not translate into RFC)
- Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148 (2019) (substantial-evidence standard for reviewing SSA factual findings)
- Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2011) (limiting hypotheticals to unskilled work can sometimes account for concentration/persistence/pace limits)
- Sizemore v. Berryhill, 878 F.3d 72 (4th Cir. 2017) (upholding RFC where detailed medical findings supported the mental limitations)
- Hancock v. Astrue, 667 F.3d 470 (4th Cir. 2012) (appellate court will not reweigh conflicting evidence or substitute its credibility determinations)
- Brown v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 873 F.3d 251 (4th Cir. 2017) (ALJ must build an accurate and logical bridge from evidence to conclusion)
- Cavallo v. Star Enter., 100 F.3d 1150 (4th Cir. 1996) (issues raised first in a reply brief are not properly before the court)