Randall v. Social Security, Commissioner of
4:13-cv-12575
E.D. Mich.Jun 30, 2014Background
- Plaintiff Stacy Randall (born 1980) applied for Disability Insurance Benefits alleging left leg injury and Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy (RSD) from a November 2009 work injury; claim denied by SSA and ALJ; Appeals Council denied review; Magistrate Judge recommended affirming denial.
- Relevant medical evidence: treating records from Dr. John Kemerer (family physician) diagnosing RSD and imposing significant restrictions; specialty records from Dr. Carol van der Harst showing limited lifting (20 lbs), standing/walking ~2 hours/day, but improvement and no consistent treatment note requiring leg elevation; consultative exam by Dr. Sankaran showed normal gait and full ankle motion.
- Plaintiff testified to persistent burning/stabbing pain in the left leg, need to elevate the leg to waist height for relief, limited sitting tolerance (~20 minutes), reliance on medications (Vicodin, Gabapentin), and limitations in household/childcare activities.
- The ALJ found RSD a severe impairment, assessed an RFC for light work with standing/walking limited to 2 hours per 8‑hour day, various postural and environmental limits, and found Plaintiff could perform jobs existing in the national economy based on VE testimony; the VE testified that mandatory left-leg elevation to waist height would preclude all work.
- Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen concluded the ALJ reasonably discounted the need for routine leg elevation, gave greater weight to Dr. van der Harst over Dr. Kemerer for supported reasons, found the credibility analysis supported by the record, and recommended granting summary judgment for the Commissioner.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ erred by omitting need to elevate left leg from RFC/hypothetical to VE | Randall argued treating physicians supported a need to elevate the leg to waist height and that omission invalidated VE testimony | Commissioner argued medical record and consultative exam did not support routine elevation; ALJ permissibly rejected elevation requirement after evaluating evidence | Court held ALJ did not err; substantial evidence supports excluding elevation from RFC/hypothetical |
| Whether ALJ properly weighed treating physicians' opinions | Randall contended ALJ failed to explain relative weight given to treating sources (Kemerer vs. van der Harst) | Commissioner pointed to ALJ's explanation: rejected unsupported extreme restrictions from Kemerer; credited van der Harst's functional limits while rejecting unsupported elevation requirement | Court held ALJ provided adequate, evidence-supported reasons for weight assigned; no reversible error |
| Whether credibility determination was adequately explained | Randall argued ALJ insufficiently addressed her symptom testimony under SSR 96-7p | Commissioner relied on objective findings (normal gait, EMG), inconsistencies with activities, and treatment records to support credibility finding | Court held ALJ made a reasoned credibility determination supported by record |
| Whether VE testimony supported step-five finding absent elevation restriction | Randall argued VE relied on RFC that omitted elevation so step-five finding invalid | Commissioner noted VE testified that inclusion of sit/stand did not change job numbers and that mandatory elevation would preclude work; because ALJ reasonably excluded elevation, VE testimony was proper basis | Court held VE testimony remained valid for RFC adopted and supported denial of benefits |
Key Cases Cited
- Sherrill v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 757 F.2d 803 (6th Cir. 1985) (standard for reviewing SSA factual findings for substantial evidence)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (Sup. Ct. 1971) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Mullen v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 535 (6th Cir. 1986) (deferential "zone of choice" standard for administrative decisions)
- Felisky v. Bowen, 35 F.3d 1027 (6th Cir. 1994) (ALJ need not include discredited limitations in VE hypothetical)
- Stanley v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 39 F.3d 115 (6th Cir. 1994) (connection between credibility findings and hypothetical questions to VE)
- Gayheart v. Commissioner of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365 (6th Cir. 2013) (treating‑source opinion must be given good reasons when rejected)
- Wilson v. Commissioner of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541 (6th Cir. 2004) (procedural requirement to explain weight given to treating opinions)
- Cole v. Astrue, 661 F.3d 931 (6th Cir. 2011) (clarifies treating physician rule and requirement to explain weight given)