McIntyre v. Colvin
758 F.3d 146
| 2d Cir. | 2014Background
- McIntyre appeals a district court judgment affirming the ALJ's denial of DIB and SSI benefits.
- The district court granted the Commissioner judgment on the pleadings, upholding substantial evidence for the denial.
- McIntyre alleges the ALJ erred by not explicitly including non-exertional limitations in the RFC and by an incomplete VE hypothetical.
- McIntyre's background includes a 2004 back disorder and depression from chronic pain; she worked until November 28, 2008, filing for benefits December 17, 2008.
- ALJ found severe impairments (back disorder and affective disorder), concluded not disabled after five-step analysis, and found the RFC to allow less than a full range of sedentary work with certain postural and stress-related restrictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the ALJ properly account for non-exertional limits in RFC and the VE hypothetical? | McIntyre argues the RFC and hypothetical omit non-exertional limits. | Commissioner contends substantial evidence supports the RFC and the hypothetical, despite some omissions. | Harmless error; implicit accounting of non-exertional limits suffices. |
| Is the Step Four RFC consistent with Step Two/Three findings and supported by substantial evidence? | Inconsistencies between Step Two/Three findings and Step Four RFC invalidates the decision. | ALJ properly applied de minimis Step Two severity and substantial evidence supports the RFC. | No error; the ALJ's RFC supported by substantial evidence. |
| May the ALJ rely on a VE's testimony based on an incomplete hypothetical? | Incomplete hypothetical omits concentration/pacing limitations. | Hypothetical largely tracks RFC and substantial evidence supports the conclusion. | Yes, the VE testimony is permissible; the hypothetical sufficiently reflects limitations. |
| Is the VE's conclusion about available sedentary jobs proper given sit/stand requirements? | Sedentary work is typically sitting; special sit/stand needs may limit jobs. | The DOT and case law permit broader interpretation; VE testimony based on experience is acceptable. | VE testimony accepted; no need for more specific sourcing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dixon v. Shalala, 54 F.3d 1019 (2d Cir. 1995) (severity de minimis; steps 2–3-4 coherence)
- Cichocki v. Astrue, 729 F.3d 172 (2d Cir. 2013) (RFC determinations and substantial evidence standard)
- Brault v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 683 F.3d 443 (2d Cir. 2012) (VE testimony sufficiency and source identification)
- Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2011) (harmless error for incomplete hypothetical when limitation implicit)
- Dumas v. Schweiker, 712 F.2d 1545 (2d Cir. 1983) (hypothetical must reflect record support and limitations)
- Aubeuf v. Schweiker, 649 F.2d 107 (2d Cir. 1981) (hypothetical limitations reflected in vocational testing)
- Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117 (2d Cir. 2008) (burden shifting at Steps 4 and 5)
- Johnson v. Shalala, 60 F.3d 1428 (9th Cir. 1995) (DOT not comprehensive; need local job info in complex cases)