Murphy v. Colvin
2:15-cv-00378
| E.D. Va. | Jun 22, 2016Background
- Plaintiff Marie B. Murphy applied for Disability Insurance Benefits alleging multi-site chronic pain, cervical and lumbar spine problems, anxiety and depression, with an alleged onset of October 9, 2011 and a date last insured of June 30, 2012.
- Administrative denials followed; an ALJ denied benefits after a December 10, 2013 hearing; the Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ decision final.
- Medical records show multiple MRIs and specialist evaluations revealing only mild degenerative changes, largely normal imaging, trigger-point injections, and extensive opioid prescriptions; record also documents concerns about possible opioid overuse and a November 2013 voluntary psychiatric admission for opiate detox.
- The ALJ found severe impairments of degenerative disc disease, depression, anxiety, and arthritis; assessed an RFC for sedentary work with limited overhead, no climbing/crawling, and simple routine tasks; and concluded jobs exist that plaintiff can perform.
- Plaintiff challenged (1) the ALJ’s treatment of lay witness (husband) testimony and (2) the ALJ’s failure to classify several pain-related disorders as severe at step two. The magistrate judge recommended affirming the Commissioner and denying relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to properly consider lay witness testimony | ALJ failed to analyze husband Michael Murphy’s testimony about plaintiff’s functional limitations and symptoms | ALJ need not separately credit duplicative/cumulative lay testimony where it merely corroborates claimant and ALJ made a credibility finding | Held: No reversible error — husband’s testimony duplicated plaintiff’s already-discredited testimony; ALJ adequately considered it in decision |
| Step-two severity finding | ALJ erred by not labeling chronic pain/myofascial pain, brachial neuritis/radiculitis, myalgia/myositis, cervicalgia, lumbago as severe impairments | Medical evidence does not show functional limitations sufficient to meet the de minimis severity threshold; claimant bears burden | Held: ALJ’s non-severity determinations supported by substantial evidence; even if error, harmless because ALJ proceeded beyond step two and considered all impairments later |
| Credibility of plaintiff’s symptom testimony | Plaintiff contends her subjective reports support severe limitations | Commissioner notes objective testing largely normal/mild and records documenting opioid misuse and inconsistent symptom control; ALJ made explicit adverse credibility findings | Held: ALJ’s credibility assessment supported by record and substantial evidence |
| Overall disposition/remand | Plaintiff sought remand for further consideration | Commissioner sought affirmance | Held: Recommendation to affirm Commissioner’s final decision and dismiss with prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Mastro v. Apfel, 270 F.3d 171 (4th Cir. 2001) (describes five-step sequential evaluation for SSI/DIB claims)
- Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585 (4th Cir. 1996) (standard limiting court review and credibility determinations in disability cases)
- Mickles v. Shalala, 29 F.3d 918 (4th Cir. 1994) (objective medical evidence required to support claimed pain-related disability)
- Hays v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453 (4th Cir. 1990) (scope of substantial-evidence review)
- Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 1999) (steps in sequential evaluation framework)
- Robbins v. Social Security Administration, 466 F.3d 880 (9th Cir. 2006) (ALJ must consider lay witness testimony; failure can require remand when testimony is material)
- Lewis v. Apfel, 236 F.3d 503 (9th Cir. 2001) (discusses ALJ duties regarding lay witness evidence)
- Stout v. Commissioner, 454 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2006) (error in failing to discuss favorable lay testimony is not harmless unless no reasonable ALJ could reach a different result)