Martin v. Berryhill
2:18-cv-00030
| W.D. Va. | Mar 18, 2020Background
- Plaintiff David L. Martin applied for DIB and SSI alleging, among other things, anxiety and depression; ALJ denied benefits on June 13, 2017, Appeals Council denied review, and the magistrate judge issued the decision on March 18, 2020.
- Relevant mental-health evidence: multiple primary-care and addiction-treatment visits documenting anxiety/depression treated with Suboxone, Klonopin, Celexa and occasional normal mental-status exams; treating/clinic notes ranged from marked anxiety to largely euthymic exams.
- Consultative exam: Dr. Paige Cordial (Mar. 2017) diagnosed major depressive disorder, panic disorder and generalized anxiety disorder and completed a checkbox form finding multiple mild-to-extreme work-related limitations and opining more than two missed workdays monthly.
- The ALJ gave Cordial’s opinion "little weight," citing (1) claimant’s inconsistent/misrepresented work history (claiming no work since 2013 while records/hearing showed intermittent work through 2017), (2) Cordial was a one-time, consultative examiner retained for the claim, (3) Cordial relied heavily on self-report (with possible symptom exaggeration), (4) checkbox form and (5) inconsistency with other record evidence (repeated normal mental-status exams and claimant’s functional activities).
- The ALJ adopted a mental RFC limiting claimant to simple, routine light work with no strict production pace, no hazards, occasional posturals and only occasional interaction with public/co-workers/supervisors; the magistrate judge found substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s weighing of Cordial’s opinion and affirmed the denial of benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ improperly discounted Dr. Cordial’s consultative opinion, rendering the mental RFC unsupported | Martin: ALJ erred in giving Cordial little weight; her exam and checkbox form show marked/extreme social, stress and concentration limits and absenteeism | Commissioner: ALJ permissibly discounted Cordial because claimant misrepresented work history, Cordial was a single consultative examiner paid for the claim, relied on self-report (tests showed possible exaggeration), used a checkbox form, and her conclusions conflicted with other records and observed functioning | Court: Affirmed. ALJ provided adequate, supported reasons to give Cordial little weight; substantial evidence supports the RFC and denial of benefits |
Key Cases Cited
- Coffman v. Bowen, 829 F.2d 514 (4th Cir. 1987) (standard of substantial evidence review)
- Laws v. Celebrezze, 368 F.2d 640 (4th Cir. 1966) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Hays v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453 (4th Cir. 1990) (ALJ resolves evidentiary conflicts; courts defer if supported by substantial evidence)
- Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U.S. 458 (U.S. 1983) (framework for sequential evaluation)
- Hall v. Harris, 658 F.2d 260 (4th Cir. 1981) (sequential evaluation steps)
- Gross v. Heckler, 785 F.2d 1163 (4th Cir. 1986) (symptoms controllable by treatment/medication are not disabling)
- King v. Califano, 615 F.2d 1018 (4th Cir. 1980) (ALJ may not reject medical evidence for no reason)
- Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650 (4th Cir. 2005) (medical opinion based primarily on claimant’s subjective complaints may be discounted)
- Taylor v. Weinberger, 528 F.2d 1153 (4th Cir. 1975) (ALJ’s duty to weigh evidence)
- Sterling Smokeless Coal Co. v. Akers, 131 F.3d 438 (4th Cir. 1997) (ALJ must analyze relevant evidence and explain reasons for crediting/discounting)