Nash v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 1:16-cv-02478

Background

Plaintiff (born 1960) applied for DIB and SSI alleging disability from July 11, 2014; ALJ issued adverse decision and Appeals Council denied review; magistrate judge recommends reversal and remand.
Medical issues: oculocutaneous albinism with congenital nystagmus (poor acuity, restricted fields, impaired depth perception); obesity; degenerative lumbar disc disease; diabetes with neuropathy; venous stasis dermatitis (leg edema/pigmentation); mild shoulder osteoarthritis.
Treating/exam evidence: ophthalmologist (Dr. Skufca) opined very restricted vision (no depth perception, severely limited fields and acuity); multiple primary-care notes and an NP (Ms. Clyburn) recommended frequent leg elevation and documented painful, reduced shoulder ROM.
State agency consultants offered RFCs allowing medium to light work with visual limits; VE testified to national jobs compatible with the ALJ’s RFC but noted reductions if more severe visual limits applied.
ALJ found severe impairments limited to decreased vision, obesity, and lumbar degenerative disc disease; assessed a medium RFC with multiple nonexertional visual/environmental limits; concluded jobs exist in significant numbers.
Magistrate judge found multiple legal errors: failure to properly account for venous stasis dermatitis and shoulder osteoarthritis at step two/throughout, inadequate consideration of opinions from the NP and ophthalmologist, an RFC unsupported by the record, and a defective step-five analysis — recommends reversal and remand.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Step Two severity findings	ALJ erred by treating venous stasis dermatitis and shoulder osteoarthritis as non-severe or omitting them	ALJ reasonably found those conditions non-severe and relied on record showing minimal limitations	Magistrate: ALJ erred; he failed to explicitly consider/then account for these impairments in later steps and did not remedy the step-two omission
Weight given to NP (Ms. Clyburn) notes	ALJ failed to acknowledge/assign weight to her recommendation (leg elevation) and other recorded limitations	Commissioner says NP’s notes were limited, short-term, and not equivalent to treating physician opinion	Magistrate: ALJ failed to address the NP’s opinions on the record; remand required for consideration
Weight given to ophthalmologist (Dr. Skufca) opinion	ALJ claimed to give great weight but omitted several of Dr. Skufca’s visual restrictions (peripheral field loss, rare near/far acuity, accommodation) from RFC	Commissioner: ALJ permissibly credited parts of the opinion consistent with evidence and included major visual limits in RFC	Magistrate: ALJ did not explain rejection of specific restrictions while purporting to give the opinion great weight; remand required
Step Five / VE reliance	VE testimony did not account for the omitted visual restrictions and conflicted with DOT for at least one job; ALJ failed to resolve discrepancies	Commissioner argues DOT descriptions are consistent with the RFC and jobs exist	Magistrate: Because RFC and hypotheticals did not reflect full record and potential conflicts were unresolved, VE testimony cannot support step-five finding; remand required

Key Cases Cited

Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U.S. 458 (Sup. Ct. 1983) (explains the five-step disability evaluation and need for efficiency)
Walls v. Barnhart, 296 F.3d 287 (4th Cir. 2002) (Commissioner bears burden at step five to show other work exists)
Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (Sup. Ct. 1971) (standard that courts review for substantial evidence)
Blalock v. Richardson, 483 F.2d 773 (4th Cir. 1972) (upholding Commissioner if supported by substantial evidence)
Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650 (4th Cir. 2005) (vocational expert testimony must mirror claimant’s impairments and be based on proper hypotheticals)
Mascio v. Colvin, 780 F.3d 632 (4th Cir. 2015) (RFC must assess claimant’s capacity for relevant functions and remand may be appropriate when ALJ fails to do so)
Pearson v. Colvin, 810 F.3d 204 (4th Cir. 2015) (ALJ must identify and resolve conflicts between VE testimony and the DOT)