Melvin Twyford, Jr. v. Commissioner, Social Security
929 F.3d 512
8th Cir.2019Background
- Twyford applied in late 2012 for disability insurance benefits and SSI, alleging disability from September 10, 2011, due to degenerative disc disease, major depressive disorder, and chronic anxiety; he had a cervical laminoplasty after applying.
- The ALJ found severe impairments: degenerative disc disease status post-laminectomy, depression, anxiety, and substance abuse, but concluded at step three no listings were met or equaled.
- The ALJ discounted portions of Twyford’s symptom testimony as not entirely credible and assessed an RFC for light work with limits (no ladders/overhead reach, no hazards, simple routine tasks, no public interaction, limited coworker interaction, occasional supervisor checks).
- At step four the ALJ found Twyford could not perform past relevant work; at step five a vocational expert identified other jobs (patching machine operator, linking machine operator, garment sorter) consistent with the RFC.
- Twyford appealed, arguing errors at step three (listed impairments), in the RFC and credibility findings, conflicts between VE testimony and the DOT, failure to develop the record, and improper weight to certain medical opinions. The district court affirmed and this court likewise affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Twyford’s spinal and mental impairments meet or equal listings at step three | Twyford: evidence shows Listing 1.04A or paragraph B criteria for Listings 12.04/12.06 are met | Commissioner: record lacks required findings (nerve root compression, marked B-criteria) | Affirmed — substantial evidence supports ALJ that listings not met/equaled |
| Whether ALJ’s RFC and adverse credibility finding are supported | Twyford: RFC too lenient; ALJ improperly discounted subjective complaints | Commissioner: ALJ permissibly relied on work history, activities, objective medical evidence | Affirmed — RFC and credibility finding supported by record evidence |
| Whether VE testimony conflicted with DOT or was based on an inadequate hypothetical | Twyford: VE jobs require mechanical parts, reaching, not isolated work; hypothetical incomplete | Commissioner: hypothetical encompassed limitations; VE testified jobs do not require overhead reach or hazards and are isolated | Affirmed — VE testimony was consistent with RFC and DOT; ALJ could rely on it |
| Whether ALJ failed to develop record or improperly weighed medical opinions (GAF and treating/examining opinions) | Twyford: ALJ did not obtain additional records and erred in discounting certain opinions/GAF scores | Commissioner: ALJ sought records, additional records submitted to Appeals Council, GAF has limited weight, some opinions were one-time exams or reserved issues | Affirmed — no unfair failure to develop record; ALJ permissibly gave limited weight to challenged opinions and GAF scores |
Key Cases Cited
- Nash v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 907 F.3d 1086 (8th Cir.) (standard of review; substantial evidence)
- KKC v. Colvin, 818 F.3d 364 (8th Cir.) (partial listing criteria do not suffice)
- Myers v. Colvin, 721 F.3d 521 (8th Cir.) (paragraph B criteria requirements)
- Hensley v. Colvin, 829 F.3d 926 (8th Cir.) (RFC need not be tied to a single medical opinion)
- Casey v. Astrue, 503 F.3d 687 (8th Cir.) (consideration of agency consultant opinions)
- Hacker v. Barnhart, 459 F.3d 934 (8th Cir.) (ALJ decision must fall within zone of choice)
- Courtney v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 894 F.3d 1000 (8th Cir.) (reliance on VE where testimony does not conflict with DOT)
- Crawford v. Colvin, 809 F.3d 404 (8th Cir.) (credibility and consistency with objective evidence)
- Wright v. Colvin, 789 F.3d 847 (8th Cir.) (limited weight of GAF scores)
- Ellis v. Barnhart, 392 F.3d 988 (8th Cir.) (statements that claimant is "disabled" are reserved to Commissioner)
- Shannon v. Chater, 54 F.3d 484 (8th Cir.) (reversal for failure to develop record only if unfair)