Ronald Salmond, Sr. v. Nancy Berryhill, Acting Cms
892 F.3d 812
5th Cir.2018Background
- Ronald Salmond, a former physician and veteran, has long-recorded mental-health diagnoses (PTSD, depression, bipolar disorder) and received VA inpatient treatment and medication since 2011.
- The VA examined him and assigned a 70% disability rating and a 100% individual unemployability (total disability) determination based on his service-connected mental conditions.
- Salmond applied to the Social Security Administration for disability benefits; multiple SSA and VA clinicians found mental limitations that would interfere with work, and an SSA-arranged psychologist found "major limitations" responding to work pressures and changes.
- The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied benefits at Step Two, finding Salmond’s impairments "mild" and not severe, relying in part on treatment notes, Salmond’s daily activities, and a two-year gap in treatment; the ALJ found Salmond’s testimony not entirely credible.
- The Appeals Council denied review after Salmond submitted a February 2015 report from his treating psychiatrist, Dr. Purcell, documenting substantial or complete loss of ability to perform many job-related activities.
- The district court affirmed the ALJ; the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding the ALJ’s Step Two finding is not supported by substantial evidence and remanding for further administrative proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Salmond’s mental impairments are "severe" at Step Two | Salmond: all medical opinions (VA and SSA examiners, treating psychiatrist) show impairments more than de minimis and interfere with ability to work; VA 100% rating entitled to great weight | Commissioner: ALJ may discount medical opinions; treatment notes and symptom control on medication support non-severity | Held: ALJ’s Step Two finding not supported by substantial evidence; medical opinions uniformly show at least de minimis severity; remand required |
| Whether ALJ properly weighed treating and examining opinions | Salmond: ALJ improperly rejected treating/examining opinions without contradictory medical evidence or seeking more info | Commissioner: ALJ is not bound by any single medical opinion and can rely on other record evidence | Held: Rejection unsupported—no contradictory medical evidence; ALJ substituted lay judgment for experts in effect |
| Whether VA disability rating should control or be given weight | Salmond: VA 100% IU rating supports finding of disability and merits great weight | Commissioner: VA rating not binding on SSA; ALJ not required to adopt it | Held: VA rating is evidence entitled to great weight and ALJ erred by effectively disregarding unanimous medical findings without adequate support |
| Whether record supports ALJ’s credibility and reliance on gaps/activities | Salmond: Treatment notes and clinician opinions corroborate impairment despite gaps; activities do not establish ability to work | Commissioner: ALJ permissibly relied on inconsistencies, gaps, and daily activities to discredit testimony | Held: Credibility findings and reliance on gaps/activities insufficient to overcome unanimous medical opinions; substantial-evidence standard not met |
Key Cases Cited
- Loza v. Apfel, 219 F.3d 378 (5th Cir. 2000) (defines "severe" impairment de minimis standard and gives VA 100% rating great weight)
- Newton v. Apfel, 209 F.3d 448 (5th Cir. 2000) (faults ALJ for rejecting treating physician without contradictory medical evidence or seeking additional info)
- Whitehead v. Colvin, 820 F.3d 776 (5th Cir. 2016) (describes substantial-evidence standard of review for ALJ decisions)
- Kneeland v. Berryhill, 850 F.3d 749 (5th Cir. 2017) (summarizes five-step SSA disability review and standards)
- Garcia v. Berryhill, 880 F.3d 700 (5th Cir. 2018) (ALJ may reject physician opinion when evidence supports contrary conclusion, but must have such supporting evidence)
- Boyd v. Apfel, 239 F.3d 698 (5th Cir. 2001) (substantial-evidence test requires credible evidentiary choices or medical findings to support decision)