Mitchell v. Berryhill
241 F. Supp. 3d 161
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Reginald Mitchell applied for DIB and SSI alleging disability beginning January 1, 2010, based on depression, asthma, a fractured right ankle, heart flutter, and degenerative disc disease.
- Medical record: ankle fracture surgically repaired (2012) with DDS orthopedist finding ability to bear full weight; DDS physician opined capability for light work (lift 20/10 lbs; sit/stand/walk ~6 hrs).
- Cardiac ablation (2014) and routine/mostly conservative treatment visits; treating clinicians twice opined he could return to work without restrictions in 2014.
- Mental-health records: July 2012 consultative exam (Dr. Cooper) noted mild depression and diminished concentration; DDS psychological reviewer (Dr. Nachbahr) found moderate limitations in sustained concentration/persistence and in Section III stated difficulty with complex/detailed information and attention for 1–2 hours.
- Administrative history: initial denials (2011, 2013), ALJ hearing in Nov. 2014; ALJ found severe impairments but not disabling, assessed an RFC for light work with specific mental limitations, and at step five relied on a vocational expert to find available work; Appeals Council denied review; district court review followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ failed to evaluate or weigh DDS psychologist Dr. Nachbahr’s opinion | Mitchell: ALJ did not properly evaluate or incorporate Dr. Nachbahr’s findings and omitted her limitations from the RFC | Commissioner: ALJ gave significant weight to DDS opinions and adequately captured their substance in the RFC | Court: ALJ adequately considered Dr. Nachbahr’s Section III narrative; RFC captured essence of her opinion; no reversible error |
| Whether ALJ ignored his own step‑three finding of moderate limitations in concentration, persistence, or pace | Mitchell: ALJ found moderate limitations at step three but failed to include corresponding RFC limits | Commissioner: Step‑three severity finding is distinct from RFC and ALJ’s adopted RFC restrictions (limits on complex tasks/decisions) account for the moderate finding | Court: RFC limitations adequately account for the step‑three moderate finding; argument fails |
| Whether ALJ’s RFC narrative discussion violated SSR 96‑8p (insufficient explanation) | Mitchell: ALJ did not explain genesis of RFC limitations or provide adequate narrative linking evidence to conclusions | Commissioner: ALJ discussed medical records, opinion evidence, and credibility; any narrative shortfall is harmless because limitations favored plaintiff | Court: Even if narrative could be fuller, any deficiency was harmless; substantial evidence supports the RFC |
| Whether the ALJ’s overall decision is supported by substantial evidence and free of harmful legal error | Mitchell: ALJ’s omissions and inadequate discussion warrant remand/reversal | Commissioner: Record evidence and reasonable weighing support denial; errors, if any, are harmless | Court: Decision affirmed — supported by substantial evidence and any legal error harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Bowen, 794 F.2d 703 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1971) (standards for administrative record evidence)
- Butler v. Barnhart, 353 F.3d 992 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (review standard for ALJ decisions)
- Davis v. Heckler, 566 F. Supp. 1193 (D.D.C. 1983) (courts should scrutinize the entire record but not reweigh evidence)