Purdy v. Berryhill, 887 F.3d 7

Rita Purdy applied for SSI in October 2011, alleging multiple physical and mental impairments including a left femur stress fracture diagnosed in April 2013.
ALJ found at Step 2 several severe impairments (knee replacement, degenerative disc disease, shoulder spurs, chronic pain, dysthymia, anxiety, ADHD, substance abuse in remission) but concluded the femur fracture was not a severe impairment because it lacked evidence of 12-month duration.
ALJ assigned little weight to treating orthopedist Dr. Kessler’s check-box opinion that Purdy had significant functional limitations from the femur fracture.
ALJ instead relied on state agency non-examining consultants and formulated an RFC for sedentary, unskilled work with specific postural and environmental limits.
A vocational expert (VE) testified, relying on Job Browser Pro (SkillTRAN) software tied to the DOT and BLS data, that substantial numbers of sedentary jobs (e.g., surveillance system monitor, document preparer, stem mounter) remained available.
Appeals Council denied review; district court affirmed; First Circuit reviewed for substantial evidence and legal error and affirmed the denial of benefits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ALJ erred in giving little weight to treating physician Dr. Kessler’s opinion about limitations from a left femur fracture	Purdy: Dr. Kessler was a treating physician whose opinion should be controlling or given substantial weight; his findings preclude sedentary work	Commissioner: Dr. Kessler’s form opinion was conclusory, internally inconsistent, and contradicted his own treatment notes showing healing and good prognosis	Held: No error — ALJ permissibly discounted the opinion because it lacked support, was inconsistent with Dr. Kessler’s records, and did not establish 12-month duration
Whether ALJ erred in relying on VE testimony using SkillTRAN/Job Browser Pro job estimates at Step 5	Purdy: VE’s reliance on proprietary software without explaining its methodology renders job-number estimates unreliable and not substantial evidence	Commissioner: ALJ may admit and weigh VE evidence; VE stated the job estimates were based on DOT and BLS data and are widely relied upon; no competing critique was offered	Held: No error — VE provided an adequate, practical foundation (linking DOT descriptions and BLS data via SkillTRAN); ALJ acted within discretion to rely on that testimony

Freeman v. Barnhart, 274 F.3d 606 (1st Cir. 2001) (applicant bears burden at first four steps of disability analysis)
Seavey v. Barnhart, 276 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2001) (describing five-step sequential evaluation)
Rodriguez v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 647 F.2d 218 (1st Cir. 1981) (substantial-evidence standard and allocation of credibility to the Commissioner)
Matney v. Sullivan, 981 F.2d 1016 (9th Cir. 1992) (ALJ may reject conclusory treating physician opinions unsupported by clinical findings)
Gordils v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 921 F.2d 327 (1st Cir. 1990) (RFC is administrative finding; common-sense judgments permitted)
Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2005) (VE’s expertise often provides adequate foundation for testimony)
Brault v. Social Sec. Admin., Comm’r, 683 F.3d 443 (2d Cir. 2012) (rejecting a strict Daubert-like gatekeeping role for ALJs in evaluating VE testimony)
McKinnie v. Barnhart, 368 F.3d 907 (7th Cir. 2004) (advocating Daubert-like inquiry for VE reliability in Social Security hearings)