Parker v. Commissioner of Social Security
2:16-cv-00352
M.D. Fla.Apr 17, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Kelly Parker applied for DIB and SSI alleging disability from March 9, 2011 due to degenerative disc disease, radiculopathy, chronic pain, arthritis, anxiety and depression.
- Consultative examiner Dr. Lance Cassell (July 18, 2011) found abnormal gait, antalgic stance, that Parker used a cane "all the time" and concluded the cane was "medically necessary," though strength testing showed 5/5 in all extremities.
- The ALJ found Parker had severe degenerative disc disease, assessed an RFC for a limited range of light work (with multiple environmental and postural restrictions but no mental limits), and concluded she could perform past relevant work or alternative sedentary jobs (secretary, office clerk, receptionist).
- At the administrative hearing, the ALJ failed to state the weight given to Dr. Cassell’s opinion or include a limitation for a medically required assistive device in the RFC or the VE hypothetical; VE testimony left ambiguous whether use of two-handed assistive devices would preclude the identified sedentary jobs.
- The Appeals Council denied review; the district court reviewed the record and found the ALJ’s failure to address the weight of the consultative opinion regarding the cane and the effect on RFC problematic.
- The district court reversed and remanded under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), directing the Commissioner to (A) address Dr. Cassell’s opinion and state the weight given and (B) reassess RFC and, if needed, obtain VE testimony about the impact of a medically required assistive device on ability to perform past or other work.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ properly evaluated consultative examiner Dr. Cassell’s opinion that a cane was medically necessary | ALJ erred by failing to assign any weight or explain reasons for crediting or rejecting Dr. Cassell’s opinion that a cane was medically necessary | Any error was harmless because even with a cane Parker could perform sedentary jobs testified to by the VE | Court: ALJ failed to state the weight given to Dr. Cassell’s opinion; remand required for the ALJ to address the opinion and explain weight assigned |
| Whether RFC should have included a limitation for a hand-held assistive device and whether VE hypothetical included all impairments | Parker: RFC is legally insufficient because ALJ omitted medically necessary assistive-device limitation and did not include it in the VE hypothetical | Commissioner: VE testimony supports that sedentary jobs remain available despite cane; omission harmless | Court: VE testimony ambiguous about whether two‑hand assistive-device use would preclude the cited jobs; because ALJ didn’t include device in RFC or explain, decision not supported by substantial evidence; remand required |
| Whether plaintiff meets or equals a Listing | Parker argued impairments meet a Listing | Commissioner found no Listing-level deficits documented | Court did not decide this issue on merits because remand on the assistive-device / RFC issue could change the analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 630 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2011) (ALJ must state with particularity the weight given to medical opinions and reasons)
- Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219 (11th Cir. 2002) (vocational expert hypothetical must include all claimant’s impairments to constitute substantial evidence)
- Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2004) (RFC must be based on all relevant evidence and describe claimant’s work-related abilities)
- Foote v. Chater, 67 F.3d 1553 (11th Cir. 1995) (standard for substantial evidence review)
- McRoberts v. Bowen, 841 F.2d 1077 (11th Cir. 1988) (scope of district court review and deference to Commissioner)