McCoy v. Astrue
648 F.3d 605
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- McCoy, born April 25, 1949, sought disability benefits for PTSD, Parkinson's disease, ADD, and peripheral neuropathy, with insured status through March 31, 2006.
- He claimed disability began February 2003, asserting limitations from his conditions, age, and limited work history render him unable to perform any work in the national economy.
- McCoy's work history includes unskilled positions (automatic machine attendant, product tester, packer) and a heavy general laborer role from 1987–1993; he has not worked since March 2001.
- Medical history during the insured period includes hand tremor, sleep disturbance, depression, PTSD treatment, and later Parkinson's diagnoses; treatment involved medications and neuropsychological assessments.
- Treating and examining physicians offered divergent views: some emphasized severe nonexertional limitations (social/interaction, memory, concentration), while others found only minor impairments.
- An ALJ concluded McCoy was not disabled, found three severe impairments (Parkinson's, PTSD, personality disorder), determined non-listing status, found RFC to perform certain unskilled work, and the Appeals Council denied review; the district court affirmed, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Step three Parkinson's listing requirement met? | McCoy argues Parkinson's listing 11.06 is met by sustained dexterous/gross movement disturbance or gait; tremor and mild rigidity allegedly meet criteria. | ALJ properly found no sustained disturbance in gross movement or gait; mild cogwheel rigidity alone and normal gait do not satisfy 11.06. | ALJ's step-three finding supported by substantial evidence; listing not met. |
| RFC and step-five basis for work being available? | ALJ failed to account for all limitations; improperly relied on VE and grids. | RFC grounded in substantial evidence, including credibility assessment and VE testimony; grids used correctly with nonexertional considerations via VE. | ALJ's RFC and step-five determination upheld with substantial evidence. |
| Credibility and reliability of McCoy's subjective complaints? | ALJ inadequately credited McCoy's claimed pain and functional limitations. | ALJ properly discounted inconsistent daily activities and medical reports; credibility reductions supported by record. | ALJ's credibility assessment upheld; despite some limitations, enough evidence supported RFC. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521 (1990) (Listing-based presumptions require meeting all criteria, not partial symptoms)
- Reynolds v. Chater, 82 F.3d 254 (1996) (Grids analysis excludes nonexertional limitations for initial disability determination)
- Fenton v. Apfel, 149 F.3d 907 (8th Cir. 1998) (Nonexertional limitations require VE testimony when grids do not apply)
- Juszczyk v. Astrue, 542 F.3d 629 (8th Cir. 2008) (RFC must reflect sustained work ability and real-world conditions)
- Barrett v. Shalala, 38 F.3d 1019 (8th Cir. 1994) (ALJ duties to develop the record are bounded by evidence in record)