Shevlin v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
4:11-cv-00551
D.S.C.Jul 13, 2012Background
- Plaintiff seeks judicial review of the Commissioner’s final decision denying DIB and SSI after an ALJ found no disability.
- Plaintiff’s alleged onset date is July 25, 2008; prior medical history includes gastric bypass, hypoglycemia, syncope, and staring spells.
- ALJ determined Plaintiff could perform light work with specific environmental and postural limitations, and found no past relevant work she could perform.
- Appeals Council denial left the ALJ’s findings intact; Plaintiff submitted new evidence with briefs, which the court declined to consider as not part of the administrative record.
- Court applied Borders four-part test to determine whether to remand for new evidence and denied remand for failure to satisfy factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| RFC and odor exposure | Shelvin cannot work given hypoglycemia and smell sensitivity; odor-free work is unavailable. | RFC properly limits exposure; substantial evidence supports ability to perform some jobs. | RFC supported by substantial evidence; not disabled. |
| Weight given to treating/opinion evidence | Dr. Morgan’s opinion supported disability due to syncope. | Dr. Morgan’s opinion given limited weight and is not determinative. | ALJ properly weighed opinions; substantial evidence supports RFC and non-disability finding. |
| New evidence and remand | New evidence should be considered on remand. | New evidence not part of record and Borders factors not satisfied; no remand. | Sentence six remand denied; new evidence not reviewable. |
| Credibility assessment | Plaintiff’s subjective symptoms fully credible. | ALJ properly found statements not fully credible given medical records. | Credibility determination supported by substantial evidence. |
| vocational evidence and step five | No odor-free jobs exist; unable to work. | VE testimony supports existence of jobs compatible with RFC. | Step five analysis supported; jobs exist in significant numbers. |
Key Cases Cited
- Borders v. Heckler, 777 F.2d 954 (4th Cir. 1985) (remand for new evidence requires four-part showing)
- Wilkins v. Sec'y, DHHS, 925 F.2d 769 (4th Cir. 1991) ( Borders test continued after statutory change)
- Shively v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 987 (4th Cir. 1984) (scope of substantial evidence review)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1971) (substantial evidence standard defined)
- Blalock v. Richardson, 483 F.2d 773 (4th Cir. 1972) (standard for judicial review of SSA decisions)
- Walls v. Barnhart, 296 F.3d 287 (4th Cir. 2002) (role of VE and substantial evidence in step five)
- Johnson v. Shalala, 434 F.3d 659 (4th Cir. 2005) (hypotheticals and reliance on substantial evidence)
- Walker v. Bowen, 889 F.2d 47 (4th Cir. 1989) (VE testimony must be based on complete record)