Pierce v. Commissioner of Social Security
1:19-cv-00432
W.D. Mich.Mar 25, 2020Background
- Plaintiff Jesse Pierce filed for Supplemental Security Income on June 10, 2016, alleging seizures, migraines, bipolar disorder/depression/anxiety, left‑knee problems, neuropathy, and other conditions.
- ALJ David Kurtz held a hearing and issued a decision on May 24, 2018, finding several severe impairments but concluding Pierce retained an RFC for a limited range of light work.
- A vocational expert testified that about 275,000 jobs existed nationally that someone with the RFC could perform; the ALJ relied on that testimony and denied benefits.
- Pierce had a prior SSA application denied by ALJ James Prothro on December 12, 2014, with prior RFC findings.
- The magistrate judge found error in ALJ Kurtz’s treatment of the prior RFC — Kurtz stated he could not make a different RFC finding absent new and additional evidence — and recommended vacatur and remand for further administrative proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ Kurtz improperly treated the earlier ALJ Prothro’s RFC as binding | Kurtz treated Prothro’s RFC as a mandatory starting point and said he "may not make a different finding" absent new evidence | ALJ properly considered the prior decision and substantial evidence supports the new RFC | Magistrate: error — Kurtz impermissibly treated prior RFC as binding; remand required under Earley/Drummond principles |
| Whether substantial evidence supports the denial (RFC and VE reliance) | Prior RFC and medical evidence require a fresh, proper RFC analysis; VE testimony cannot cure a flawed RFC | VE testimony showing 275,000 jobs supports denial given the RFC adopted by the ALJ | Magistrate: factual disputes remain and no compelling proof of disability; resolution must await further administrative factfinding |
| Appropriate remedy (award vs. remand) | Plaintiff seeks relief from the erroneous legal standard (remand for correct analysis; potentially benefits if record compels) | Commissioner defends the denial and argues no remand needed | Magistrate: remand for further administrative proceedings (not an immediate award) |
| Whether prior‑decision preclusion (res judicata) applies to this later application | Prothro’s final RFC should not be treated as binding for a distinct, unadjudicated period | Commissioner relies on SSA practice of considering prior findings | Magistrate: res judicata does not automatically bind the later decision for a distinct period; prior RFC may be considered but not treated as mandatory |
Key Cases Cited
- Dennard v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 907 F.2d 598 (6th Cir. 1990) (prior ALJ findings can preclude contradictory later findings covering the same period)
- Drummond v. Commissioner of Social Security, 126 F.3d 837 (6th Cir. 1997) (prior RFC is binding on a subsequent decision absent new and material evidence or changed circumstances)
- Earley v. Commissioner of Social Security, 893 F.3d 929 (6th Cir. 2018) (res judicata applies only to the same period; for distinct periods prior findings are persuasive but not mandatory)
- Faucher v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., 17 F.3d 171 (6th Cir. 1994) (standards for when the record compels an award of benefits versus remand)
- Taskila v. Commissioner of Social Security, 819 F.3d 902 (6th Cir. 2016) (guidance on what constitutes a "significant number" of jobs)