McBride v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
2:19-cv-00514
| E.D. Wis. | Mar 16, 2020Background
- Plaintiff Randy McBride applied for SSI in 2015, alleging disability from prior gunshot injuries to his right ankle and right (dominant) hand that produced limb‑length discrepancy, limp, chronic ankle pain, and reduced right‑hand strength/sensation.
- Medical record: sporadic treatment, history of substance abuse and some drug‑seeking behavior; consultative exam (Dr. Reintjes) found antalgic gait, ~1–1.5" right leg shortening, mild right ankle ROM loss, slightly decreased right grip; x‑rays showed well‑healed fractures.
- Agency reviewer (Dr. Shaw) concluded sedentary work capacity with frequent right‑hand handling/fingering; ALJ gave Dr. Shaw and Dr. Reintjes substantial weight.
- ALJ adopted an RFC for sedentary work: use of a cane for ambulation, less than occasional right foot controls, primarily left‑side lifting (right assists), and frequent right hand handling/fingering; relied on a VE who identified several reduced but substantial numbers of sedentary jobs.
- ALJ denied benefits at step five; claimant appealed arguing errors in consideration of Listings (1.02, 1.05, 1.06), the RFC narrative/credibility (including alleged need to elevate leg), and failure properly to assess erosion of the sedentary occupational base under SSR 96‑9p.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ properly considered Listings 1.02, 1.05, 1.06 | McBride argued his ankle deformity/partial ‘‘amputation’’ and need for a cane (and limited right hand) meet or equal Listings requiring inability to ambulate effectively or amputation‑level injury | Commissioner relied on medical record and agency physician opinion showing no gross anatomical deformity, no amputation, healed fractures, and that claimant did not meet criteria for inability to ambulate effectively | Court affirmed: ALJ’s step‑3 analysis adequate; claimant failed to present medical evidence or expert opinion establishing Listing criteria or ineffective ambulation; listing‑related error, if any, was harmless |
| Adequacy of RFC narrative and treatment of claimant’s testimony (SSR 96‑8p) | McBride argued ALJ failed to explain RFC fully and did not expressly reject testimony that he must elevate his leg after ~30 minutes (a limitation the VE said would be dispositive) | Commissioner pointed to ALJ’s discussion of the record, reasons for discounting full extent of symptoms (limited/sporadic care, drug‑seeking, declining treatments), and reliance on medical opinions; no doctor supported leg‑elevation restriction | Court affirmed: ALJ provided sufficient rationale and implicitly rejected greater limitations; lack of specific discussion of the elevation claim was not reversible absent supporting medical evidence |
| Whether ALJ properly assessed erosion of sedentary occupational base (SSR 96‑9p) | McBride argued the use of a cane in the left hand plus limited right‑hand lifting significantly erodes sedentary jobs and ALJ failed to determine whether erosion was "significant" | Commissioner relied on VE testimony that accounted for cane and right‑hand limits and still identified tens of thousands of jobs; claimant’s counsel did not challenge VE methodology at hearing | Court affirmed: ALJ appropriately consulted a VE, posed accurate hypotheticals, and permissibly relied on VE’s uncontradicted testimony that substantial numbers of jobs remained |
| Weight accorded medical and lay opinion evidence | McBride contended ALJ undervalued evidence of limitations (and overvalued agency exam) | Commissioner noted ALJ gave great weight to consultative and agency medical opinions, properly discounted non‑medical lay letter and plaintiff’s inconsistent treatment/medication requests | Court affirmed: ALJ reasonably weighed opinions; no contrary treating physician opinion supported more restrictive RFC |
Key Cases Cited
- Briscoe v. Barnhart, 425 F.3d 345 (7th Cir.) (burden allocation and use of VE)
- Fast v. Barnhart, 397 F.3d 468 (7th Cir.) (use of VE when non‑exertional limits exist)
- Liskowitz v. Astrue, 559 F.3d 736 (7th Cir.) (VE testimony and significance of job numbers)
- Pepper v. Colvin, 712 F.3d 351 (7th Cir.) (ALJ must build a logical bridge from evidence to conclusion)
- Castile v. Astrue, 617 F.3d 923 (7th Cir.) (review decision as a whole and with common sense)
- Minnick v. Colvin, 775 F.3d 929 (7th Cir.) (claimant bears burden to present medical findings matching a Listing)
- Scheck v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 697 (7th Cir.) (physician consideration of medical equivalence and burden rules)
- Filus v. Astrue, 694 F.3d 863 (7th Cir.) (ALJ may rely on agency physician when uncontradicted)
- Shideler v. Astrue, 688 F.3d 306 (7th Cir.) (ALJ need not parse credibility line‑by‑line)
- Rice v. Barnhart, 384 F.3d 363 (7th Cir.) (RFC must be supported by medical evidence and opinion)
- Brown v. Colvin, 845 F.3d 247 (7th Cir.) (forfeiture of VE‑testimony challenge if not raised at hearing)
- Schomas v. Colvin, 732 F.3d 702 (7th Cir.) (harmless‑error principle in disability review)
- SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80 (U.S.) (Chenery principle regarding grounds for agency decisions)