Morse v. Social Security Administration Commissioner
2:16-cv-02091
W.D. Ark.Jun 6, 2017Background:
- Charles D. Morse applied for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) alleging disability beginning July 29, 2012; insured through December 31, 2017; hearing held July 8, 2014.
- ALJ found severe impairments: diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and obesity; ruled other alleged impairments (shoulder, leg pain/neuropathy) non-severe but considered them in the RFC.
- ALJ assessed an RFC for medium work with frequent (not constant) postural limitations and found Morse could perform past relevant work as an appliance assembler.
- ALJ discounted Morse’s subjective complaints based on daily activities, conservative treatment, medication noncompliance, ability to work after injury, and attempts to obtain DOT truck-driving clearance and unemployment benefits.
- Plaintiff appealed, arguing the ALJ failed to fully develop the record, misclassified shoulder/leg pain at Step Two, erred in the RFC, and erred in finding he could perform past work; Appeals Council denied review; Magistrate Judge Wiedemann affirmed the denial of benefits.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to fully and fairly develop the record | ALJ should have ordered consultative orthopedic exam and a medical source statement as requested by counsel | Record contained sufficient medical evidence (treating notes, imaging, consultative exam) to decide claim | No error — ALJ adequately developed the record; no unfair/prejudicial gap |
| Step Two severity of shoulder and leg pain | Right shoulder and leg/neuropathy were medically determinable and severe | Shoulder/leg complaints not shown to produce more than minimal work limitations; ALJ still considered non-severe impairments in RFC | No reversible error — ALJ permissibly found them non-severe and considered them in RFC |
| Credibility of subjective complaints and symptom evaluation | Plaintiff’s pain and limitations are disabling | ALJ relied on inconsistencies: activities of daily living, conservative treatment, medication noncompliance, work history, attempts to work/apply for DOT and unemployment | Supported — ALJ reasonably discounted credibility under Polaski factors; substantial evidence supports finding |
| RFC and past relevant work determination | RFC should reflect greater limitations; thus ALJ erred in concluding Morse could do past appliance-assembler work | RFC (medium with postural limits) supported by medical evidence, consultative exam, and vocational expert testimony | Affirmed — RFC supported by record; VE testimony supports ability to perform past relevant work |
Key Cases Cited
- Ramirez v. Barnhart, 292 F.3d 576 (8th Cir. 2002) (court reviews Commissioner’s decision for substantial evidence)
- Edwards v. Barnhart, 314 F.3d 964 (8th Cir. 2003) (ALJ’s decision must be affirmed if supported by substantial evidence)
- Haley v. Massanari, 258 F.3d 742 (8th Cir. 2001) (existence of substantial evidence supporting ALJ precludes reversal even if record could support contrary outcome)
- Young v. Apfel, 221 F.3d 1065 (8th Cir. 2000) (ALJ's findings affirmed when two inconsistent positions possible)
- Pearsall v. Massanari, 274 F.3d 1211 (8th Cir. 2001) (claimant bears burden to prove disability lasting 12 months)
- Frankl v. Shalala, 47 F.3d 935 (8th Cir. 1995) (ALJ’s duty to fully and fairly develop the record)
- Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320 (8th Cir. 1984) (factors for evaluating subjective complaints)
- Prosch v. Apfel, 201 F.3d 1010 (8th Cir. 2000) (treating physician opinion controlling only if supported and consistent)
- Lauer v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 700 (8th Cir. 2001) (RFC is a medical question requiring support in the record)
- Lewis v. Barnhart, 353 F.3d 642 (8th Cir. 2003) (ALJ must specify limitations and how they affect RFC)