Robert Blackburn v. Carolyn W. Colvin
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 14631
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Blackburn applied for Social Security disability and SSI in March 2010, alleging bipolar disorder, intermittent explosive disorder, PTSD, and ADHD; he stopped working as a roofer in March 2009.
- Treatment history included inpatient hospitalization (Aug 2008) and ongoing outpatient care at Hillcrest; GAF scores in the record ranged from 41–70 with fluctuations.
- Consultative examiner Dr. Gibson (May 2010) found limitations in interpersonal work but capacity for simple, solitary tasks; state psychologist Dr. Ryan assessed moderate limits and ability to perform routine, repetitive work with minimal interpersonal demands.
- Treating ARNP Sarah Justmann completed an April 2011 questionnaire describing serious to marked functional limitations, including inability to maintain regular work attendance; ALJ discounted that opinion.
- At hearing Blackburn testified to social avoidance, anger outbursts, past substance problems in remission, and medication noncompliance due to cost; vocational expert identified unskilled jobs consistent with restrictions (e.g., assembler, laundry folder, night stocker).
- ALJ denied benefits (Dec. 9, 2011): severe impairments found but listings not met (12.02, 12.04, 12.08); RFC limited to simple tasks, brief/superficial interactions; other work available. District court affirmed; this court likewise affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Blackburn's Argument | Commissioner’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Blackburn met listing 12.04 (Affective Disorders) | Blackburn argued the record met Paragraph B or C criteria for listing 12.04 | Commissioner argued Blackburn showed only moderate limitations, no required decompensation episodes, and could live outside a highly supportive environment | Court held substantial evidence supports ALJ that listing 12.04 not met |
| Whether ALJ improperly rejected treating nurse practitioner Justmann’s opinion | Blackburn argued Justmann was a treating source and her opinions deserved controlling weight or special consideration | Commissioner argued nurse practitioners are "other" medical sources; ALJ permissibly discounted her opinion as inconsistent with record | Court held ALJ did not err in discounting Justmann’s opinion; even treating opinions must be well-supported and consistent to control |
| Whether the hypothetical to the vocational expert was defective for omitting "argumentativeness" | Blackburn argued omission of argumentativeness rendered the vocational testimony unreliable | Commissioner argued hypothetical included all credible, supported limitations (brief/superficial interactions, occasional supervisors) | Court held hypothetical was adequate because it captured the ALJ’s RFC based on substantial evidence |
| Whether ALJ’s RFC determination was supported by substantial evidence | Blackburn argued RFC should reflect Justmann’s severe limitations and episodic decompensation | Commissioner pointed to consultative exam, state review opinion, GAF variability, and evidence of functioning (living alone, chores) | Court held RFC supported by substantial evidence and consistent with medical and testimonial record |
Key Cases Cited
- Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521 (1990) (claimant must satisfy all listing criteria to meet a listing)
- Davis v. Apfel, 239 F.3d 962 (8th Cir. 2001) (ALJ’s RFC/hypothetical need include only credible, supported impairments)
- Prosch v. Apfel, 201 F.3d 1010 (8th Cir. 2000) (ALJ may discount treating opinions that are inconsistent)
- Myers v. Colvin, 721 F.3d 521 (8th Cir. 2013) (treating source opinion controls only if well-supported and consistent with record)
- McCoy v. Astrue, 648 F.3d 605 (8th Cir. 2011) (claimant bears burden to prove listing criteria are met)