Schmitt v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of
6:13-cv-01129
D. Kan.Jul 16, 2014Background
- Plaintiff John Schmitt applied for SSI alleging disability since December 7, 2007; ALJ denied benefits in a May 8, 2011 decision and found plaintiff not disabled at step five.
- ALJ found severe impairments: lumbar degenerative disc disease, substance abuse, antisocial personality disorder, and a mood disorder.
- Medical opinions at issue: Dr. Brewster (examining) — walk/stand 6 hours/day but needs 15-minute breaks every 2 hours; occasional stooping.
- Non-examining Dr. Siemsen — light work capacities (sit/stand 6 hours/day, lift up to 50/25 lbs), occasional climbing limits.
- Dr. Hinken (treating/operative) — significant left-hand limitations after wrist injury (e.g., never finger/handle with left hand); ALJ gave his opinion little weight because limitations were not expected to last 12 months.
- ALJ’s RFC: light work, avoid concentrated cold/vibration, simple work with no more than occasional public contact; ALJ gave significant weight to Drs. Brewster, Siemsen, and Stern but omitted some of their specific limits. Court remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to include Dr. Brewster’s sit/stand/alternate position limitation (15-min break every 2 hrs) in RFC | Schmitt: ALJ credited Brewster but omitted mandatory sit/stand frequency; that omission undermines VE testimony and RFC | ALJ/Commissioner: RFC reflected medical record; some postural limits are harmless; omitted specifics not necessary | Remanded — ALJ must include Brewster’s sit/stand specificity or provide legally sufficient rationale; VE testimony unreliable without specificity |
| Rejection of Dr. Hinken’s left-hand limitations as not meeting 12-month duration | Schmitt: ALJ should have credited Hinken’s limits on left hand use | ALJ: Hinken’s opinion post-dated injury by ~2 months and lacks medical support to show 12-month duration; claimant bears duration burden through step four | No reversible error now — ALJ reasonably discounted for lack of 12-month duration evidence, but duration may be revisited on remand |
| Failure to account for some moderate mental limitations found by Dr. Stern | Schmitt: ALJ gave significant weight to Stern but adopted only some moderate limitations without explanation | ALJ: Limited claimant to simple work and occasional public contact (purportedly reflecting Stern) | Remanded — ALJ must explain why some moderate limitations from Stern were adopted and others rejected |
| Credibility findings challenged | Schmitt: ALJ’s credibility assessment was erroneous | ALJ: Credibility may be reduced based on record | Court did not decide now — credibility may be affected by on-remand medical findings and thus was left for the ALJ to reconsider |
Key Cases Cited
- Glenn v. Shalala, 21 F.3d 983 (10th Cir.) (standards for court's substantial-evidence review)
- Ray v. Bowen, 865 F.2d 222 (10th Cir.) (substantial-evidence not a mere quantitative exercise)
- Barnhart v. Thomas, 124 S. Ct. 376 (U.S.) (five-step sequential evaluation overview)
- Nielson v. Sullivan, 992 F.2d 1118 (10th Cir.) (claimant’s burden through step four; burden shifts at step five)
- Thompson v. Sullivan, 987 F.2d 1482 (10th Cir.) (Commissioner meets burden if decision supported by substantial evidence)
- Haga v. Astrue, 482 F.3d 1205 (10th Cir.) (ALJ must explain why medical opinion limitations are accepted or rejected)
- Chapo v. Astrue, 682 F.3d 1285 (10th Cir.) (remand may be required to avoid repeated error)
- Roberts v. Shalala, 66 F.3d 179 (9th Cir.) (claimant bears burden to show medical evidence of 12-month duration)
- Channel v. Heckler, 747 F.2d 577 (10th Cir.) (limitations affecting ability to perform full range of work may preclude reliance on grids/standard jobs)