Reese v. Commissioner of Social Security, 3:19-cv-00297

Plaintiff Adam L. Reese applied for SSI (filed April 3, 2015) alleging disabling mental impairments (anxiety, depression); initial ALJ denial, district court remand in 2018.
On remand, ALJ Gregory Kenyon held a hearing (May 21, 2019) and issued a July 30, 2019 decision finding Reese not disabled; Reese appealed to district court without seeking Appeals Council review.
Treating psychiatrist Stephanie Fitz, M.D., rendered opinions (Aug. 28, 2014 and Nov. 11, 2018) indicating GAF 45, marked–extreme limitations, >3 absences/month, and ~20% off-task time.
ALJ rejected Dr. Fitz’s opinions as unsupported by objective findings and asserted they reflected Reese’s subjective complaints; ALJ relied selectively on normal observations (intact insight/judgment, orientation, grooming in some notes).
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman found the ALJ’s rejection of Dr. Fitz impermissibly selective: numerous treatment notes document unkempt appearance, anxious/depressed mood, flat/constricted affect, thought disturbance, suicidal ideation, limited eye contact, etc., undermining the ALJ’s rationale.
Recommendation: reverse the Commissioner’s non-disability finding (lack of substantial evidence) and remand under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings; no immediate award of benefits because disability proof is not overwhelming.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ALJ properly weighed treating psychiatrist Dr. Fitz’s opinion	Reese: ALJ wrongly rejected Fitz; her opinion is supported by longitudinal clinical observations and should be given controlling or greater weight	Comm’r: ALJ permissibly discounted Fitz due to lack of objective findings and inconsistency with treatment notes showing intact insight/cognition	Court: ALJ’s rejection unsupported by substantial evidence because he selectively relied on limited findings and ignored extensive clinical observations supportive of Fitz; remand required
Whether other non-treating opinions were properly weighed (record reviewers, examining psychologist)	Reese: ALJ erred in weighing non-treating and examining opinions	Comm’r: ALJ’s RFC accounted for all proper limitations	Court: Did not reach merits; directed ALJ to consider these arguments on remand
Whether ALJ erred in discounting lay witness (mother) testimony and characterizing anxiety as minor/subjective	Reese: ALJ improperly dismissed mother’s testimony and minimized anxiety evidence	Comm’r: ALJ permissibly evaluated credibility and evidence	Court: Not addressed on merits; reserved for ALJ on remand
Whether immediate award of benefits is appropriate	Reese: Implicitly argues errors warrant benefits	Comm’r: Opposes immediate award; further proceedings appropriate	Court: Evidence not overwhelming; remand for further administrative proceedings rather than immediate benefits

Bowen v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 478 F.3d 742 (6th Cir. 2007) (standard of review and legal-error principles in SSA appeals)
Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971) (definition of substantial evidence)
Buxton v. Halter, 246 F.3d 762 (6th Cir. 2001) (ALJ has a "zone of choice" when supported by substantial evidence)
Rabbers v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 582 F.3d 647 (6th Cir. 2009) (legal error can require reversal even if substantial evidence exists)
Blakley v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399 (6th Cir. 2009) (factors to weigh treating-source opinions)
Faucher v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 17 F.3d 171 (6th Cir. 1994) (standards for awarding benefits versus remanding)
Blankenship v. Bowen, 874 F.2d 1116 (6th Cir. 1989) (psychiatric impairments often lack objective lab tests; clinical observations are relevant)
Felisky v. Bowen, 35 F.3d 1027 (6th Cir. 1994) (remand/benefits principles and evaluation of disability evidence)