O'Connell v. Colvin
6:13-cv-00035
W.D. Va.Aug 13, 2014Background
- O’Connell (63) sought DIB claiming disability since 12/15/2009; hearing loss, gouty arthritis, anxiety, depression, possible DJD; ALJ denied; Appeals Council denial; magistrate recommended denial of plaintiff’s motion and affirmance of Commissioner.
- ALJ found severe impairments: hearing loss, gouty arthritis of feet, possible mild DJD, anxiety/adjustment disorder, history of substance use; RFC to medium work with restrictions; no past relevant work; could perform certain jobs
- Plaintiff challenged hearing loss credibility, consultative examiner Humphries, treating psychiatrist Hartman, credibility findings, and use of Medical-Vocational Guidelines; substantial evidence supported ALJ’s decision
- Hearing loss affected work; ALJ limited exposure to noise and relied on lack of hearing aid use and limited treatment to assess severity
- Mental impairments evaluated via PRF framework; ALJ adopted Gardner (consulting) findings over Hartman; GAF scores considered but not dispositive
- Grid rule 202.06 deemed inapplicable; court upheld ALJ’s RFC and step-five determination
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hearing loss impact on RFC and job ability | O’Connell cannot work due to hearing loss | RFC accounts for hearing loss; jobs identified require minimal hearing | Substantial evidence supports RFC and job-finding despite hearing loss |
| Weight given to Humphries’ consultative opinion | Humphries’ limitations not supported by exam/record | Humphries’ findings consistent with record | ALJ properly adopted Humphries’ opinion; substantial evidence supports the RFC |
| Mental impairments and treating physician Hartman | Hartman should have greater weight; GAF scores show severity | Hartman did not provide functional-work capacity opinion; GAF not controlling | ALJ appropriately weighed evidence; no controlling treating-physician opinion required |
| Credibility of O’Connell’s testimony | ALJ failed to credibly discount symptoms | Treatment history and inconsistent statements justify discounting | ALJ’s credibility assessment supported by substantial evidence |
| Applicability of Medical-Vocational Guideline 202.06 | Grid directs disability | MRD-based RFC excludes disabling result; grid not applicable | Grid 202.06 inapplicable; RFC supports non-disabled finding |
| Overall sufficiency of substantial evidence | Record shows disability | Evidence supports non-disability | Substantial evidence supports Commissioner’s denial of disability |
Key Cases Cited
- Mastro v. Apfel, 270 F.3d 171 (4th Cir. 2001) (substantial evidence standard; scope of review)
- Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585 (4th Cir. 1996) (RFC framework; burden shifts at steps)
- Hines v. Barnhart, 453 F.3d 559 (4th Cir. 2006) (treating physician weight has no absolute rule; may be less if contrary evidence)
- Powell v. Astrue, 927 F. Supp. 2d 267 (W.D.N.C. 2013) (GAF scores non-determinative for disability)
- Smith v. Chater, 99 F.3d 635 (4th Cir. 1996) (credibility determinations; deference to ALJ)
- Gardner v. Commissioner, (unpublished) (4th Cir. 2012) (use of consultative assessment in determining RFC)