Sharnese v. Berryhill
3:16-cv-02019
| N.D. Tex. | Aug 16, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Nylonda Sharnese sought Supplemental Security Income alleging disabling depression, anxiety, psychomotor retardation, cognitive dysfunction, and related conditions; application denied at initial, reconsideration, ALJ, and Appeals Council levels.
- Administrative hearing on July 21, 2014; Plaintiff was 48 and reported some part‑time work and a history of skilled jobs (paralegal, supervisor, accounting clerk, etc.).
- ALJ found severe impairments including depression, anxiety, delusional disorder, cognitive dysfunction, migraines, scoliosis history, and right knee cyst, but no listing‑level impairment.
- ALJ assessed RFC for the full range of light work with mental limits: routine/repetitive 5‑step tasks, work‑related decisions, concentration up to 2‑hour intervals, occasional coworker/supervisor interaction, and appropriate response to routine changes.
- ALJ discounted opinions/support for greater limitations due to lack of specificity, inconsistent objective findings, Plaintiff’s treatment noncompliance and missed appointments, and daily activities inconsistent with disabling limitations.
- Magistrate Judge recommended affirming the Commissioner, concluding substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision; instructions given for filing objections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ erred in RFC by not finding disability from mental impairments | Sharnese argued severe depression, psychomotor retardation, confusion, and anxiety produce disabling functional limits | Commissioner argued diagnoses do not equal disability and record medical opinions do not show limitations beyond ALJ’s RFC; noted noncompliance with treatment | Held: ALJ’s RFC supported by substantial evidence; no reversible error — affirm recommendation |
| Weight given to medical opinions (e.g., neuropsychologist, treating providers) | Plaintiff relied on evaluations suggesting cognitive difficulties that could impede return to work | Commissioner and ALJ noted many exams found normal memory/attention, logical thought, and opinions lacking specificity; several providers found improvement | Held: ALJ permissibly gave little weight to vague or non‑specific opinions; substantial evidence supports weight assignments |
| Effect of Plaintiff’s noncompliance with treatment on disability finding | Plaintiff disputed impact or relevance of missed appointments | Commissioner and ALJ relied on noncompliance as evidence undermining claimed severity | Held: ALJ permissibly considered noncompliance and inconsistent treatment history in evaluating credibility and limitations |
| Whether ALJ properly considered daily activities and functional evidence | Plaintiff asserted limitations inconsistent with reported activities | Commissioner emphasized Plaintiff’s reported independent daily living, volunteering, exercise, and part‑time work as inconsistent with disabling impairment | Held: ALJ reasonably relied on activities and objective records to find alleged severity unsupported |
Key Cases Cited
- Leggett v. Chater, 67 F.3d 558 (5th Cir. 1995) (claimant bears burden to prove disability under first four steps)
- Abshire v. Bowen, 848 F.2d 638 (5th Cir. 1988) (disability definition and burden discussion)
- Anthony v. Sullivan, 954 F.2d 289 (5th Cir. 1992) (diagnoses and treatment do not alone establish disability)
- Greenspan v. Shalala, 38 F.3d 232 (5th Cir. 1994) (five‑step sequential evaluation; substantial evidence standard)
- Villa v. Sullivan, 895 F.2d 1019 (5th Cir. 1990) (sequential evaluation framework)
- Bowling v. Shalala, 36 F.3d 431 (5th Cir. 1994) (burden shifts to Commissioner at step five)
- Anderson v. Sullivan, 887 F.2d 630 (5th Cir. 1989) (burden‑shifting at step five)
- Taylor v. Astrue, 706 F.3d 600 (5th Cir. 2012) (procedural errors require showing they affected substantial rights)
- Falco v. Shalala, 27 F.3d 160 (5th Cir. 1994) (ALJ not required to follow formalistic articulation rules)
- Morris v. Bowen, 864 F.2d 333 (5th Cir. 1988) (procedural errors affect substantial rights when they cast doubt on substantial evidence)
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (U.S. 1985) (objection procedure to magistrate judge recommendations)
- Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (failure to timely object bars de novo review and appeal)