Shoults v. Commissioner of Social Security, 2:19-cv-01425

Background

Anne M. Shoults filed Title II and Title XVI applications in 2015 alleging disability beginning August 31, 2014; initial and reconsideration denials followed, two hearings were held, and the ALJ denied benefits on June 25, 2018; the Appeals Council denied review.
ALJ found severe impairments including degenerative disc disease, major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and panic disorder with agoraphobia, and formulated an RFC for modified light work (limited sit/stand/walk, no ladders, occasional stoop/kneel/crawl, limited public/coworker contact, simple repetitive tasks, no strict quotas).
At step four the ALJ found Shoults could not perform past relevant work; at step five the ALJ found jobs existed in the national economy and denied benefits.
Key medical-opinion disputes: treating physician Dr. Virostko’s opinions were characterized by the ALJ as “somewhat vague” and not given controlling weight; consultative examiners Dr. Offutt (physical) and Dr. Barwick (psychological) were also deemed “somewhat vague” and given some weight.
Shoults argued the ALJ failed to apply the treating-source two-step (controlling-weight) analysis to Dr. Virostko and should have recontacted Drs. Offutt and Barwick for clarification.
The district court sustained Shoults’s objection, reversed and remanded under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) because the ALJ failed to perform the required first-step analysis for the treating-source opinion; the court upheld the ALJ’s decision not to recontact the consultative examiners.

Issues

Issue	Shoults' Argument	Commissioner’s Argument	Held
Whether the ALJ properly evaluated treating physician Dr. Virostko’s opinion under the treating-source rule	ALJ did not determine whether Virostko’s opinion was (1) well-supported by medically acceptable techniques or (2) inconsistent with other substantial evidence (failed first-step), so controlling-weight analysis was incomplete	ALJ permissibly found Virostko’s opinion vague, relied on timing and treatment-gap factors, and declined to give it controlling weight	Court: ALJ failed to perform the first-step controlling-weight analysis required by precedent; omission warrants remand for proper analysis (sustained objection)
Whether the ALJ had to recontact consultative examiners Dr. Offutt and Dr. Barwick	ALJ should have recontacted the doctors to clarify vague, non-specific limitations	Consultative reports were complete and adequate under agency rules, so no duty to recontact	Court: ALJ properly declined to recontact; reports contained sufficient history, exam findings, diagnoses, and opinions (ALJ’s decision on recontact upheld)

Key Cases Cited

Wilson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541 (6th Cir. 2004) (treating-source rule and controlling-weight framework)
Gayheart v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365 (6th Cir. 2013) (failure to perform first-step treating-source analysis requires remand)
Cole v. Astrue, 661 F.3d 931 (6th Cir. 2011) (ALJ’s failure to follow agency rules denotes lack of substantial evidence)
Blakely v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399 (6th Cir. 2009) (good-reasons requirement when not giving treating-source controlling weight)
Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1971) (definition and scope of substantial evidence)
Rabbers v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 582 F.3d 647 (6th Cir. 2009) (agency must follow its own regulations and remand where prejudicial errors occurred)