Royce McDade v. Michael J. Astrue
720 F.3d 994
| 8th Cir. | 2013Background
- McDade applied for disability insurance benefits (Title II) and supplemental security income (Title XVI) alleging disability beginning May 26, 2007.
- Initial and reconsideration denials preceded a hearing before an ALJ, where McDade testified about respiratory, cardiac, diabetes, obesity, arthritis, depression, anxiety, and severe neck/back/pelvic pain.
- McDade’s mother testified to daily assistance needs and his tendency to lie down for long periods; the record shows extensive medical treatment.
- The ALJ found McDade had a severe impairment, could perform sedentary work, and was not disabled; the Appeals Council denied review.
- The district court affirmed; McDade appeals arguing (1) credibility of pain, (2) weight given to certain doctors, (3) need for an expert at Step 5, and (4) step 3 Listing analysis.
- The court reviews de novo for substantial evidence and affirms if the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the ALJ properly evaluate McDade's pain credibility? | McDade argues Polaski factors support disabling pain. | ALJ credited some pain but discounted extreme disabling claim based on activities and records. | Yes; ALJ properly discounted extreme pain with substantial evidence. |
| Did the ALJ properly weigh Dr. Clary, Dr. Hurst, and Dr. Tucker's opinions? | ALJ inadequately weighed medical opinions supporting impairment. | ALJ appropriately weighed opinions consistent with record and credibility findings. | Yes; ALJ properly weighed the opinions. |
| Was it necessary to elicit a vocational expert's testimony at Step 5 or were the Grids sufficient? | Nonexertional pain requires VE testimony rather than reliance on Grids. | When credibility is properly discredited, Grids can be used at Step 5. | Grids properly applied; VE testimony not required given credibility findings. |
| Did the ALJ properly apply Listing 1.04 at Step 3? | McDade's spine conditions meet Listing 1.04. | McDade failed to show nerve/root compromise required by Listing 1.04. | No; Listing 1.04 not met; ALJ correct at Step 3. |
Key Cases Cited
- Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320 (8th Cir. 1984) (five-factor credibility framework for pain)
- Kirby v. Astrue, 500 F.3d 705 (8th Cir. 2007) (deference to ALJ credibility if supported by substantial evidence)
- Lowe v. Apfel, 226 F.3d 969 (8th Cir. 2000) (ALJ need not discuss every Polaski factor; must acknowledge them)
- Cox v. Barnhart, 471 F.3d 902 (8th Cir. 2006) (credibility determinations require good reasons and substantial evidence)
- Baker v. Barnhart, 457 F.3d 882 (8th Cir. 2006) (nonexertional impairments may still allow Grid reliance if credibility is sufficiently undermined)
- Ellis v. Barnhart, 392 F.3d 988 (8th Cir. 2005) (disability determination reserved to Commissioner; medical opinions must be weighed accordingly)
- Perks v. Astrue, 687 F.3d 1086 (8th Cir. 2012) (Appeals Council must consider new and material post-decision evidence)
- Cunningham v. Apfel, 222 F.3d 496 (8th Cir. 2000) (record review of completeness; focus on overall record compatibility)
- Steed v. Astrue, 524 F.3d 872 (8th Cir. 2008) (burden at Step 4 to show disability; Listing criteria requires specific findings)