Sizemore v. Berryhill
878 F.3d 72
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Sizemore (b.1977) applied for Social Security disability benefits in July 2011, alleging disability from diabetes and bipolar/schizoaffective disorder; ALJ denied benefits and the Appeals Council refused review; district court affirmed and this appeal followed.
- Medical record shows recurrent diabetic emergencies (DKA, hyperglycemia), diabetic neuropathy/blurred vision, repeated alcohol and some methamphetamine abuse, and psychiatric treatment with diagnoses including bipolar/schizoaffective disorder, panic disorder/agoraphobia, and alcohol dependence; GAF scores ranged roughly from 25–55 depending on hospitalization and intoxication.
- State agency psychologist (Dr. King) and consultative psychiatrist (Dr. Ahsanuddin) concluded Sizemore could perform simple, routine tasks with moderate limitations in concentration/persistence/pace and that functioning would likely improve with abstinence and medication compliance.
- Sizemore’s mother reported moderate limitations but regular daily activities (meal prep, chores, leaving the house); some treating providers (NP Williams) urged disabling limits based on “brittle diabetes” and neuropathy.
- At hearing, vocational expert testified unskilled, simple, low-stress, no-public-contact jobs (dishwasher, general laborer) remained available; however, daily unscheduled absences would preclude employment.
- ALJ found Sizemore not disabled, gave significant weight to Drs. Ahsanuddin and King, discounted NP Williams, found some symptoms not fully credible (pointing to alcohol abuse and noncompliance), and concluded substance abuse/noncompliance likely worsened functioning.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ failed to account for "moderate" concentration/persistence/pace limits (Mascio issue) | ALJ acknowledged moderate limits but failed to translate them into the RFC and did not accommodate Dr. King’s specific limitations | ALJ and Commissioner relied on Dr. King and Dr. Ahsanuddin who explained that, despite moderate limits, Sizemore could sustain simple 1–2 step tasks for ~2 hours and in low-stress settings | Court held ALJ did not err; substantial evidence supports RFC because consultative and state opinions explained capacity to do simple, routine tasks despite moderate limitations (Mascio remand not required) |
| Whether ALJ improperly ignored/failed to weigh GAF scores, especially low scores | Sizemore argued ALJ treated GAFs as dispositively low and cherry-picked higher scores, ignoring lowest scores tied to poor functioning | Commissioner argued ALJ considered GAFs in context, relied on supporting text, and low GAFs occurred during intoxication/hospitalization so were not controlling | Court held ALJ adequately considered GAF scores as part of the record and permissibly weighed them with substance-abuse context; no error |
| Whether ALJ mischaracterized evidence, cherry-picked facts, and improperly assessed credibility | Sizemore alleged selective citation, mischaracterization of social history and mother's report, and that ALJ downplayed his daily limitations | Commissioner pointed to multiple record inconsistencies, provider doubts about claimant’s credibility, and noncompliance/alcohol abuse undermining reports | Court held any minor misstatements were immaterial; ALJ’s credibility findings were supported by substantial evidence (inconsistencies, provider concerns, noncompliance) |
Key Cases Cited
- Mascio v. Colvin, 780 F.3d 632 (4th Cir. 2015) (remand required where ALJ finds moderate concentration/pace limits but fails to account for them in RFC or explain why not limiting)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971) (substantial-evidence standard governs administrative findings)
- Hays v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453 (4th Cir. 1990) (court reviews ALJ disability findings under substantial-evidence standard)
- Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (GAF scores are not dispositive but may be considered as part of the record)