Shaffer v. Commissioner of Social Security, 1:18-cv-00592

Background

Plaintiff Gregory C. Shaffer applied for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) alleging disability beginning March 2014; his date last insured (DLI) was June 30, 2017.
After initial denials, an ALJ held a hearing (Oct. 24, 2017) and issued an adverse decision (Feb. 1, 2018) finding Shaffer capable of light work with non‑exertional limits and able to perform past work or other jobs. The Appeals Council denied review.
ALJ found severe physical impairments (cervical/lumbar spine disorders, knee osteoarthritis, COPD) but concluded mental impairments (depression/anxiety) were non‑severe.
Shaffer’s primary treating physician, Dr. Neama Esmaili, completed two June 2016 RFC forms asserting work‑preclusive physical and marked mental limitations; consulting/examining providers offered much milder opinions.
Plaintiff testified to using a cane (said to be prescribed by his family doctor); the ALJ’s decision omits any meaningful discussion of cane use.
Magistrate Judge Bowman recommends reversing and remanding under sentence four because the ALJ failed to give adequate, specific reasons when rejecting/discounting the treating physician’s opinions and failed to address cane use and other inconsistencies in the RFC, credibility analysis, and consulting‑opinion weight.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Weight to treating physician (Dr. Esmaili)	ALJ should have given controlling or more detailed consideration to Dr. Esmaili’s treating‑source RFC opinions (physical and mental).	Commissioner contends the treating opinion is inconsistent with the record and consulting opinions, and the ALJ permissibly discounted it.	Remand required: ALJ failed to articulate "good reasons" with sufficient specificity for not giving controlling weight to treating opinions.
Cane/use of assistive device and sedentary RFC/Grid Rule 201.14	Cane use (prescribed) supports restriction to sedentary work, which would trigger automatic disability under the Medical‑Vocational Grid.	Commissioner notes limited/minimal records showing cane use and that prescription may post‑date DLI; argues ALJ’s conclusion about ambulation is supported.	Remand required: ALJ failed to address cane use at all; omission contributed to inadequate record analysis.
Severity of mental impairments at Step 2	Shaffer contends depression/anxiety were severe and the ALJ erred finding them non‑severe.	Commissioner relies on consulting evaluations and record showing only mild limitations.	Court did not directly reverse on this point but found ALJ’s brief analysis insufficient; remand for reconsideration.
Credibility/consistency and hypothetical to vocational expert	ALJ inadequately explained adverse consistency determination and omitted limitations in hypotheticals (related to treating opinion).	Commissioner argues ALJ permissibly discounted subjective complaints based on objective findings and treatment notes.	Remand required: credibility/consistency analysis was overly brief and contributes to inability to assess whether VE hypothetical was supported by substantial evidence.

Key Cases Cited

Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (discusses standard of substantial evidence) (substantial evidence test).
Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U.S. 467 (defines statutory meaning of disability) (requirements for benefits).
Felisky v. Bowen, 35 F.3d 1027 (6th Cir. 1994) (substantial evidence and "zone of choice" principle).
Hephner v. Mathews, 574 F.2d 359 (6th Cir. 1978) (reviewing the record as a whole on substantial evidence review).
Warner v. Commissioner of Social Security, 375 F.3d 387 (6th Cir. 2004) (treating‑physician rule standard).
Blakley v. Commissioner of Social Security, 581 F.3d 399 (6th Cir. 2009) (ALJ must give "good reasons" when discounting treating opinions).
Wilson v. Commissioner of Social Security, 378 F.3d 541 (6th Cir. 2004) (rationale for deference to treating sources).
Rogers v. Commissioner of Social Security, 486 F.3d 234 (6th Cir. 2007) (credibility/consistency review framework).
Walters v. Commissioner of Social Security, 127 F.3d 525 (6th Cir. 1997) (ALJ credibility determinations entitled to deference).