Scott v. Commissioner of Social Security
4:22-cv-00878-PAB
N.D. OhioJun 15, 2023Background:
- Darius Scott applied for Child’s DIB and SSI in Oct. 2016 alleging disability from June 30, 2016; his claims were denied administratively.
- ALJ held a hearing May 22, 2019; on June 25, 2019 the ALJ found Scott not disabled, concluding severe mental impairments (major depressive disorder, anxiety, ADHD, schizophrenia) but that he did not meet or equal Listings and retained an RFC for work with non‑exertional limits.
- Appeals Council declined review; Scott sought district-court review and the matter was referred to a magistrate judge, whose R&R recommended affirming the Commissioner.
- Scott objected, arguing the ALJ erred at Step Three by not addressing Listings 12.03 (schizophrenia), 12.06 (anxiety), and 12.15 (trauma), and by failing to consider medical equivalence and the need for a medical expert; he also challenged reliance on state agency psychologists.
- The District Court reviewed de novo, found the ALJ had considered Listing‑style criteria (explicitly discussed 12.04 and paragraph B/C criteria), concluded Scott had not raised a "substantial question" that he met/equaled the omitted listings, found several new arguments waived for not being raised below, and affirmed the Commissioner.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ALJ's failure to mention Listings 12.03, 12.06, 12.15 at Step Three | ALJ’s omission was reversible because record supports both Paragraph A and C criteria for those listings | Omission harmless because ALJ analyzed similar Listing 12.04 and the B/C criteria are identical across those listings | Court: Harmless error — no "substantial question" raised; ALJ's discussion of 12.04/B&C and other parts of decision sufficed |
| Whether Scott met or equaled the Listings (medical equivalence / Paragraph C) | Scott points to medication changes, decompensations, reliance on mother/caseworker, lack of HS diploma, no license — arguing Paragraph C (serious & persistent, marginal adjustment) is met | Commissioner/ALJ found moderate limitations in Paragraph B and insufficient evidence of Paragraph C; substantial evidence supports ALJ | Court: Substantial evidence supports ALJ's Paragraph B and C findings; Scott failed to identify evidence establishing equivalence |
| Reliance on state‑agency psychologist opinions and need for a medical expert | State reviewers didn’t review many records, didn’t assess equivalence, and were outdated; Medical Expert needed to assess equivalence | Records and ALJ's review supported findings; claimant failed to preserve/argue need for medical expert below | Court: Argument waived (not raised before magistrate); in any event ALJ’s decision supported by substantial evidence |
| Raising new issues in district‑court objections | N/A — Scott introduces new equivalence/MEP arguments in objections | District court may refuse new arguments not presented to the magistrate | Court: Enforced waiver rule; declined to consider arguments raised for first time in objections |
Key Cases Cited
- Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521 (1990) (claimant must meet all listing criteria; partial overlap is insufficient)
- Abbott v. Sullivan, 905 F.2d 918 (6th Cir. 1990) (framework for five‑step analysis and when listings require discussion)
- Reynolds v. Commissioner of Social Security, [citation="424 F. App'x 411"] (6th Cir.) (ALJ must evaluate and explain listing analysis when raised)
- Sheeks v. Commissioner of Social Security, [citation="544 F. App'x 639"] (6th Cir.) (ALJ need not discuss listings claimant clearly does not meet; "substantial question" standard)
- Smith‑Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security, [citation="579 F. App'x 426"] (6th Cir.) (to raise a "substantial question" claimant must point to specific evidence satisfying every listing requirement)
- Murr v. United States, 200 F.3d 895 (6th Cir. 2000) (district court may refuse new arguments not presented to the magistrate)
- Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security, 336 F.3d 469 (6th Cir. 2003) (courts must uphold ALJ where substantial evidence supports decision even if record could support opposite conclusion)