MININNI v. COLVIN
1:14-cv-00305
W.D. Pa.Mar 21, 2016Background
- Plaintiff Angelo Mininni filed for SSI on April 29, 2011, alleging disability from depression, bipolar disorder, anxiety, and anger; he has a ninth-grade education and no past relevant work.
- An ALJ held a hearing on April 17, 2013, then denied benefits on April 30, 2013; the Appeals Council denied review and this suit followed.
- The ALJ found severe impairments of mood disorder and personality disorder but concluded they did not meet a listing and assessed an RFC for all exertional levels with non‑exertional limits: simple, repetitive tasks; occasional interaction with others; ability to handle simple instructions/decisions; tolerate supervision and routine changes.
- The ALJ gave weight to medical-source opinions (treating psychiatrist Dr. Welge, consultative examiner Dr. Zelazowski, state consultant Dr. Fink) and incorporated several limitations into the RFC; the court found the ALJ’s evaluation of those opinions permissible.
- At step 5, instead of calling a vocational expert (VE), the ALJ relied on Section 204.00 of the Medical‑Vocational Guidelines and SSR 85‑15, finding the nonexertional limitations had little or no effect on the unskilled occupational base.
- The district court vacated and remanded the Commissioner’s decision, concluding the ALJ improperly relied on SSR 85‑15 in summary fashion and failed to show how plaintiff’s specific mental limitations fit the Ruling (and plaintiff had not received advance notice that the ALJ would rely on the grids/SSR instead of a VE).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ properly weighed medical opinions (Drs. Welge, Zelazowski, Fink) | ALJ ignored or improperly discounted treating and consultative opinions and GAF scores supporting disability | ALJ permissibly evaluated opinions; POMS requirements do not override regs; state consultant opinions are entitled to consideration | Held: Court found no error in ALJ's weighting of those medical opinions; ALJ’s reasons were supported by the record |
| Whether ALJ could rely on the grids/SSR 85‑15 instead of VE testimony at step 5 | Reliance on SSR 85‑15 without an individualized showing is improper and plaintiff lacked notice to prepare rebuttal | Defendant relied on SSR 85‑15 and grids as allowed when only nonexertional limits exist | Held: ALJ erred—reliance on SSR 85‑15 was conclusory; ALJ failed to explain how specific mental limitations impacted the unskilled occupational base; remand required |
| Whether advance notice was required before relying on SSR/grids instead of a VE | Plaintiff argued no advance notice was given and thus fairness required scrutiny | Defendant did not show advance notice; cited SSR/grids reliance | Held: Court emphasized Allen v. Barnhart requires advance notice and gave close scrutiny; absence of notice contributed to remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Plummer v. Apfel, 186 F.3d 422 (3d Cir. 1999) (definition of substantial evidence standard)
- Morales v. Apfel, 225 F.3d 310 (3d Cir. 2000) (court must scrutinize the whole record and remand if decision lacks substantial evidence)
- Reefer v. Barnhart, 326 F.3d 376 (3d Cir. 2003) (claimant-friendly construction of disability evidence)
- Dobrowolsky v. Califano, 606 F.2d 403 (3d Cir. 1979) (burden on Commissioner to rebut disability evidence construed strictly)
- Allen v. Barnhart, 417 F.3d 396 (3d Cir. 2005) (agency must give advance notice if it will rely on rules/SSR instead of individualized VE evidence; ALJ must explain how SSR fits claimant’s specific limitations)
- Edelman v. Commissioner of Social Sec., 83 F.3d 68 (3d Cir. 1996) (discussion of when reliance on administrative rulings substitutes for individualized proof)