SMITH v. COLVIN
1:14-cv-00313
W.D. Pa.Mar 31, 2016Background
- Plaintiff (born 1963) filed for DIB and SSI alleging disability from March 17, 2009, for knee pain, depression, diabetes, sleep apnea and pulmonary disease; claims denied and ALJ found not disabled on June 24, 2013; Appeals Council denied review.
- ALJ found severe impairments including left-knee degenerative changes, diabetes, sleep apnea, pulmonary disease and obesity and assessed an RFC for sedentary work in an environment "without excessive dust, fumes and extremes of temperatures."
- Treating pulmonologist Dr. Amal completed a pulmonary questionnaire indicating plaintiff must avoid wetness, odors, fumes, temperature extremes, humidity, dust, perfumes, gases, solvents/cleaners, cigarette smoke, soldering fluxes and chemicals.
- ALJ stated he gave Dr. Amal's opinion "significant weight" and purported to incorporate environmental restrictions but the RFC omitted many of Dr. Amal's specific avoidance restrictions and changed "avoid" to limiting exposure to "excessive" irritants without explanation.
- At step 5 the ALJ relied on Medical-Vocational Rule 201.19 as a framework and SSR 85-15 rather than calling a vocational expert; plaintiff was 49 at decision and would be 50 within seven months (a borderline age issue).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the RFC properly reflects treating pulmonologist's environmental restrictions | Smith: RFC failed to incorporate Dr. Amal's avoidant restrictions (wetness, odors, humidity, perfumes, gases, solvents, smoke, chemicals) and changed "avoid" to "no excessive" exposure without explanation | Colvin: ALJ not required to adopt every treating limitation; ALJ has RFC determination authority | Court: ALJ gave "significant weight" but failed to explain omissions/inconsistency; RFC unsupported — remand required |
| Whether ALJ permissibly relied on SSR 85-15 and the Grids at step 5 without vocational expert testimony | Smith: Non-exertional environmental limits may significantly erode occupational base; needed VE or advance notice and analysis under Allen | Colvin: SSR 85-15 can be used as framework; no VE required | Court: ALJ improperly relied on SSR 85-15 without clear fit or advance notice and without VE given unclear environmental limits — remand required |
| Whether ALJ properly handled "borderline age" (age 49, turning 50 in 7 months) when applying the Grids | Smith: ALJ should consider older age category because using it might change the outcome | Colvin: Applied grids to younger category; did not address borderline because not dispositive | Court: Seven months is within borderline range; ALJ mechanically applied grids without considering use of older age category or transferability — remand required |
| Whether ALJ's step 5 finding is supported by substantial evidence overall | Smith: Cumulative errors (RFC, SSR reliance, borderline age) undermine step 5 conclusion | Colvin: ALJ decision supported by record and regulatory framework | Court: Errors cumulatively render step 5 unsupported by substantial evidence — decision reversed and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Fargnoli v. Massanari, 247 F.3d 34 (3d Cir. 2001) (standard for substantial evidence review and need for explanation of RFC)
- Plummer v. Apfel, 186 F.3d 422 (3d Cir. 1999) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Morales v. Apfel, 225 F.3d 310 (3d Cir. 2000) (court must scrutinize record and reverse if decision not supported by substantial evidence)
- Allen v. Barnhart, 417 F.3d 396 (3d Cir. 2005) (ALJ must give advance notice before relying on rules instead of VE and must show how an SSR fits claimant's limitations)
- Sykes v. Apfel, 228 F.3d 259 (3d Cir. 2000) (grids may be used as framework; when non-exertional limits exist, VE or notice is generally required)