Rodriguez v. Astrue
6:10-cv-00085
| S.D. Tex. | Jan 24, 2012Background
- Plaintiff Mary L. Rodriguez applied for Title II disability benefits alleging disability beginning January 17, 2006 due to SLE, osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, and obesity.
- ALJ held a de novo hearing on October 9, 2008 with medical and vocational experts; Plaintiff appeared with counsel and testified.
- ALJ found Plaintiff not disabled at steps 1–5, determining she could perform light work with specific postural and climbing limitations and could return to past relevant work as a Retail Sales Clerk.
- Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision; Plaintiff sued for review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
- The district court granted the Commissioner summary judgment, affirming the ALJ’s determination and denying benefits.
- Key issues on appeal: (i) Step 2 severity standard including shoulder impingement, (ii) weight given to medical expert regarding RFC, (iii) past work determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Step 2 severity standard was misapplied | Rodriguez argues the ALJ misapplied Stone/5th Circuit standard regarding severity. | Astrue contends any misstatement was non-prejudicial and did not affect outcome. | No remand; ALJ’s misstatement did not change result. |
| Whether the ALJ properly weighed the non-examining medical expert’s RFC opinion | ME opinion should be given less weight against treating sources. | ALJ properly weighed factors and favored treating evidence where appropriate. | RFC assessment properly rejected ME opinion; no remand. |
| Whether the Step 4 finding to return to past work was adequately supported | VE testimony/classification of past work was insufficient to prove not disabled. | DOT/VE gen erally supports past work as performed; claimant could perform it. | Plaintiff could perform past relevant work as generally performed; no remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stone v. Heckler, 752 F.2d 1099 (5th Cir. 1985) (severity standard de minimis when proceeding past Step 2)
- Mays v. Bowen, 837 F.2d 1362 (5th Cir. 1988) (procedural perfection not required; substantial rights)
- Johnson v. Bowen, 864 F.2d 340 (5th Cir. 1988) (standard for review of disability determinations)
- Greenspan v. Shalala, 38 F.3d 232 (5th Cir. 1994) (burden allocation and sequential evaluation basics)
- Chaparro v. Bowen, 815 F.2d 1008 (5th Cir. 1987) (past work inquiry depends on ability to perform work generally)