Reiss v. Commissioner of Social Security
3:16-cv-03037
C.D. Ill.Aug 22, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Jeremy Reiss (b.1981) applied for SSI in 2012 alleging disability from multiple physical and mental impairments, including borderline intellectual functioning, ADHD, intermittent explosive disorder, depression, anxiety, asthma, knee/joint/back pain, and a history of drug abuse.
- Medical and consultative records included mixed findings: two consultative exams showing largely normal physical findings; mental-status exams and Mental Health Association treatment records showing ADHD, intermittent explosive disorder, anxiety/depression, GAFs generally 50–60, and borderline/full-scale IQ ≈73 on later testing.
- Third-party function reports (aunts) described significant functional and behavioral limitations, including difficulty following instructions, distractibility, anger outbursts, and hearing voices.
- ALJ held a hearing, elicited vocational expert testimony, ordered additional IQ testing, and adopted an RFC limiting Reiss to light work with numerous nonexertional restrictions (routine, repetitive tasks, low stress, no public contact, occasional supervisor/coworker contact, etc.).
- ALJ found no past relevant work and, relying on VE testimony and RFC, concluded jobs existed in the national economy; Appeals Council denied review. Magistrate Judge recommended affirming the Commissioner.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ erred in evaluating mental impairments and borderline intellect for disability | Reiss argued his mental impairments and limited intellect render him disabled and that MH records and school history show greater functional limitation | Commissioner argued record as a whole (MH records, consults, IQ testing, prior work history, counselor notes, and VE testimony) supports RFC and non-disability finding | ALJ’s evaluation and RFC are supported by substantial evidence; no reversible error found |
| Weight given to treating/agency mental-health opinions and GAF scores | Reiss contended MH providers’ GAFs and assessments show disabling limitations | Commissioner noted GAFs are of limited evidentiary value and ALJ reasonably discounted inconsistent or subjective-based opinions while relying on consistent record evidence | ALJ permissibly gave limited weight to GAFs and some MH opinions and explained reliance on other record evidence |
| Credibility/consistency of symptom reports (including hearing voices) | Reiss relied on subjective symptom reports (voices, anger, concentration problems) | Commissioner and ALJ pointed to inconsistencies, lack of longstanding treatment before 2012, consultative findings, and clinicians’ doubts about psychotic symptoms | ALJ’s assessment of symptoms and credibility was supported and not patently wrong |
| Whether substantial evidence supports Step 5 finding (jobs exist) | Reiss argued limitations preclude competitive employment | Commissioner relied on VE testimony applying ALJ’s RFC to identify representative light/semiskilled jobs | VE testimony provided substantial evidence that jobs exist; decision affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (explains substantial evidence standard for administrative findings)
- Jens v. Barnhart, 347 F.3d 209 (court must accept ALJ findings if supported by substantial evidence)
- Delgado v. Bowen, 782 F.2d 79 (same)
- Pepper v. Colvin, 712 F.3d 351 (limits on reviewing ALJ symptom evaluations; credibility standard guidance)
- Elder v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 408 (review of credibility and symptom evaluations)
- Clifford v. Apfel, 227 F.3d 863 (ALJ must build a logical bridge from evidence to conclusion)
- Weatherbee v. Astrue, 649 F.3d 565 (burden allocation at Step 5 and substantial evidence review)
- Briscoe ex rel. Taylor v. Barnhart, 425 F.3d 345 (burden on claimant at early steps)
- Video Views, Inc. v. Studio 21, Ltd., 797 F.2d 538 (procedural rule on objections to magistrate recommendations)