Nowak v. Commissioner of Social Security
1:16-cv-00511
W.D. Mich.Jun 29, 2017Background
- Plaintiff (age 46 at alleged onset) applied for DIB and SSI alleging disability from May 10, 2012, due to left shoulder and neck problems; applications denied and ALJ Reamon issued an unfavorable decision on June 18, 2015; Appeals Council denied review.
- Medical history: work injury May 2012 → left shoulder labral/rotator cuff injuries with two arthroscopies (2012, 2013); cervical degenerative disc disease noted on MRI; brief cubital tunnel (ulnar neuropathy) treated with ulnar nerve transposition in Oct. 2013 with marked improvement.
- Treating orthopedist Dr. Daniel Mass submitted a checkbox RFC form (Oct. 2013) asserting extreme left upper‑extremity and postural limits and >4 absences/month; form provided little explanatory support in treatment notes.
- ALJ found severe impairments (shoulder surgeries; cervical DDD), adopted an RFC for light work with multiple nonexertional limits (no overhead reaching, occasional right reaching, no ladders, limited stoop/crouch, avoid hazards/extremes), found plaintiff unable to do past work but could perform jobs existing in significant numbers (e.g., folder, assembler of small parts, garment sorter), and denied benefits at step five.
- District court review: plaintiff challenged (1) ALJ’s discounting of treating physician opinion and (2) ALJ’s adverse credibility finding; court affirmed, holding the ALJ gave adequate, evidence‑based reasons and substantial evidence supports the decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weight accorded treating physician opinion (Dr. Mass) | Dr. Mass’s RFC showed greater limitations; ALJ failed to give "good reasons" for discounting a treating source | ALJ reasonably discounted the checkbox opinion as unsupported, inconsistent with treatment record (notably post‑op improvement after ulnar nerve transposition) | ALJ’s reasons were supported by substantial evidence; reduced weight appropriate |
| Consideration of 404.1527(c) factors after giving less‑than‑controlling weight | ALJ failed to meaningfully apply/explicitly discuss the 1527(c) factors | ALJ referenced and applied relevant factors (supportability, consistency, treating status) and record shows consideration | No reversible error; record shows the ALJ considered relevant factors and substantial evidence supports his weighting |
| Weight to non‑examining state consultant (Dr. Mohiuddin) over treating opinion | Non‑examining opinion should not outweigh treating opinion | Non‑examining opinion may be given significant weight when treating opinion is unsupported and non‑examiner explains differences | ALJ permissibly relied on non‑examining opinion where it was consistent with record and better supported |
| Credibility of plaintiff’s symptom testimony (falls, shaking, need for help) | ALJ misstated/mischaracterized testimony and improperly relied on daily activities evidence | ALJ reasonably found subjective allegations inconsistent with objective findings and treating notes showing effective ambulation and functioning on medications | Credibility finding reasonable and supported by record; any minor misstatements harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- Brainard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 889 F.2d 679 (6th Cir. 1989) (scope of judicial review and substantial‑evidence standard)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Bogle v. Sullivan, 998 F.2d 342 (6th Cir. 1993) (review of administrative findings and substantial evidence)
- Mullen v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 535 (6th Cir. 1986) (substantial evidence as a zone of choice)
- Gayheart v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365 (6th Cir. 2013) (treating‑physician rule and requirement to give "good reasons" for discounting)
- Walters v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 127 F.3d 525 (6th Cir. 1997) (standard for evaluating subjective pain testimony)
- Cutlip v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 25 F.3d 284 (6th Cir. 1994) (when an ALJ may reject a treating physician’s opinion)
- Wilson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541 (6th Cir. 2004) (requirement that ALJ’s reasons be specific to allow meaningful review)