Roseann Zirnsak v. Commissioner Social Security
777 F.3d 607
| 3rd Cir. | 2014Background
- Roseann Zirnsak applied for SSDI alleging disability with an amended onset date of May 11, 2006; her date last insured was December 31, 2007.
- She sustained serious injuries in a 2001 motor vehicle accident and received ongoing medical and rehabilitative care; relevant mental evaluations occurred during and after the insured period.
- ALJ Pileggi found Zirnsak not disabled for the relevant period (May 11, 2006–Dec. 31, 2007), assessing an RFC for sedentary, routine, simple tasks; a VE identified representative jobs (order clerk, charge account clerk, telephone clerk, sedentary subassembler).
- The Appeals Council affirmed; the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s R&R and affirmed the denial of benefits. Zirnsak appealed to the Third Circuit.
- On appeal Zirnsak argued the ALJ (1) improperly discounted lay witness statements, (2) gave little weight to consultative psychologist Dr. Newman’s 2010 opinion, (3) posed an incomplete hypothetical to the VE by omitting memory/task limitations, and (4) failed to resolve conflicts between the VE’s testimony and the DOT.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weight accorded to lay witness statements | ALJ improperly rejected/assigned little weight to family and friend statements documenting substantial limitations | ALJ reasonably discounted lay statements as inconsistent with limited medical treatment and failure to address the relevant period (May 2006–Dec 2007) | Affirmed: ALJ followed SSR 06-03p, explained credibility findings, and substantial evidence supports discounting those statements |
| Weight accorded to Dr. Newman’s 2010 opinion | Dr. Newman’s evaluation shows memory deficits and should have greater weight in RFC | Newman’s exam was conducted in April 2010 (well after insured period) and did not purport to be retrospective, so it has limited relevance to the insured period | Affirmed: ALJ permissibly gave little weight because the consult was outside the relevant time frame and did not address the insured period |
| Hypothetical to the VE / omission of memory/task limitations | ALJ’s hypothetical failed to include credibly established short-term memory and task limitations, so VE testimony is unreliable | Memory/task limitations were medically contested and contradicted by activities of daily living and driving evidence; ALJ reasonably excluded non-credibly established limits | Affirmed: Under Rutherford framework ALJ may omit limitations supported by some medical evidence but controverted by other record evidence |
| Conflicts between VE testimony and the DOT (reasoning and strength levels) | VE jobs (reasoning level 3) conflict with limitation to simple, routine tasks; VE’s sedentary characterization of subassembler conflicts with DOT’s light exertion | ALJ elicited consistency inquiry; VE explained subassembler sit/stand option; even if subassembler conflict unresolved, other VE-identified jobs (order clerk, charge account clerk, telephone clerk) support step-five finding | Affirmed: ALJ asked about DOT consistency; any reasoning-level conflict was not obvious or prejudicial given record and claimant’s abilities; subassembler discrepancy harmless because substantial evidence supports availability of other jobs |
Key Cases Cited
- Rutherford v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 546 (3d Cir.) (framework for including credibly established limitations in VE hypotheticals)
- Diaz v. Comm'r, 577 F.3d 500 (3d Cir.) (deference to ALJ credibility assessments)
- Adorno v. Shalala, 40 F.3d 43 (3d Cir.) (requirement that ALJ identify specific reasons for rejecting evidence)
- Burns v. Barnhart, 312 F.3d 113 (3d Cir.) (ALJ duties regarding VE/DOT conflicts and requirement to elicit/explain inconsistencies)
- Boone v. Barnhart, 353 F.3d 203 (3d Cir.) (inconsistencies with DOT do not automatically require remand if substantial evidence elsewhere supports the result)
- Hackett v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1168 (10th Cir.) (example of courts finding a conflict between level-3 reasoning jobs and limitation to simple, repetitive tasks)