Proctor v. Berryhill, 2:15-cv-16255

Background

Claimant Jason D. Proctor applied for Disability Insurance Benefits, alleging onset March 30, 2012, for left leg/knee/ankle problems, lumbar spine issues, and depression/anxiety; application denied by ALJ July 18, 2014; Appeals Council denied review.
ALJ found severe impairments including degenerative joint disease (left knee/ankle), lumbar degenerative disc disease, major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety, pain disorder, and alcohol abuse.
RFC: sedentary work with standing/walking limited to 4 hours/day, sitting 4 hours/day; occasional postural activities; avoid ladders/ropes/scaffolds, vibrations, unprotected heights, moving machinery; limit reading/writing to sixth-grade level.
ALJ found Claimant unable to perform past relevant heavy work but concluded other jobs exist; denied benefits. Key factual inputs: consultative exams (Dr. Beard, EMG/NCS), state agency RFC and psychiatric reviews, emergency/clinic records, and a post-hearing May 2, 2014 orthopedic note (Dr. Castle) submitted to the Appeals Council.
Claimant sought remand arguing (1) ALJ failed to analyze Listing 1.02(A) (major peripheral weight-bearing joint) properly (and new Dr. Castle evidence would support meeting it), and (2) ALJ failed to incorporate moderate mental limitations (concentration/persistence/pace and social functioning) into the RFC per Mascio.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ALJ erred at step 3 by failing to find Listing 1.02(A) met	Proctor: medical record (Dr. Beard findings + Dr. Castle post‑hearing note) shows gross anatomical deformity, motion limits, and inability to ambulate effectively, satisfying Listing 1.02(A)	Commissioner: claimant must meet all listing criteria including inability to ambulate effectively (extreme limitation); record shows claimant ambulated without bilateral‑upper‑limb assistive device and did not meet that threshold	Court: ALJ's step‑3 conclusion supported by substantial evidence; no record showing inability to ambulate effectively; Dr. Castle evidence duplicative and not material to change outcome
Whether evidence submitted to Appeals Council (Dr. Castle, May 2, 2014) requires remand as new and material	Proctor: Dr. Castle’s exam shows severe left knee degeneration and collapse of lateral tibial plateau — new material evidence that would alter result	Commissioner: evidence is duplicative of existing record (Dr. Beard and others); not new/material to period before ALJ decision	Court: Evidence not sufficiently new or material (duplicative); no good cause shown for late submission; remand not warranted
Whether ALJ failed to account for moderate mental limitations (concentration, persistence, pace; social functioning) in RFC per Mascio	Proctor: ALJ found moderate limitations but did not translate them into specific RFC restrictions or include them in VE hypothetical; remand required under Mascio	Commissioner: ALJ used paragraph B findings to rate severity and then accounted for limitations (e.g., limited reading/writing to 6th grade); ALJ explained credibility findings and why no additional mental limits were needed	Court: ALJ gave adequate explanation, incorporated relevant limits (6th‑grade literacy) and tied credibility findings to record; Mascio remand not required here
Whether ALJ’s RFC and credibility findings are supported by substantial evidence	Proctor: RFC omits some mental/functional limits and relies on selective evidence	Commissioner: ALJ considered full record, medical opinions, daily activities, and inconsistencies (alcohol use, driving/working history) in assessing credibility and RFC	Court: RFC and credibility determinations are supported by substantial evidence; ALJ provided adequate explanations distinguishing this case from Mascio

Key Cases Cited

Blalock v. Richardson, 483 F.2d 773 (4th Cir. 1972) (defines "substantial evidence" standard)
Mascio v. Colvin, 780 F.3d 632 (4th Cir. 2015) (explains when failure to account for moderate mental limitations in RFC may require remand)
Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521 (U.S. 1990) (claimant must meet all specified listing criteria)
Wilkins v. Secretary, Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 953 F.2d 93 (4th Cir. 1991) (new and material evidence standard for sentence‑six remand)
Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89 (U.S. 1991) (limits on types of remand under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g))
Radford v. Colvin, 734 F.3d 288 (4th Cir. 2013) (standards for evaluating conflicts and vocational testimony)
McLamore v. Weinberger, 538 F.2d 572 (4th Cir. 1976) (Commissioner's burden at step five to show alternative work exists)