Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security
631 F.3d 632
3rd Cir.2010Background
- Smith applied for DIB and SSI, alleging disability since October 2003; application denied, then denied again on reconsideration; ALJ Donna A. Krappa found Smith RFC sufficient to perform past work at step four; Appeals Council denied review; District Court affirmed (Title 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)).
- Smith argues the ALJ's hypothetical to the VE did not fully convey his limitations as identified by three medical experts (Drs. Tan, Graff, Edelman).
- The SSA regulations permit a VE to testify to whether a claimant can meet past work given limitations; Section I of the Mental Residual Functional Capacity Assessment is a worksheet, not the RFC itself.
- Dr. Tan, Graff, and Edelman provided various assessments of Smith’s mental limitations; Edelman concluded Smith could follow simple tasks but struggle with complex tasks and stress.
- The ALJ’s hypothetical to the VE specified medium work with simple, routine, one- to two-step tasks and limited public/coworker interaction, and the VE testified Smith could perform past work as a loader/unloader and in general warehouse work.
- Smith failed to raise Dr. Edelman’s arguments in district court, and are thus waived on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the hypothetical properly reflected all credibly established limitations. | Smith | Smith's limitations from Tan/Graff included; Edelman not properly considered. | Hypothetical adequately reflected established limitations; not reversible error. |
| Whether Section I (worksheet) of the MRFC form can support a challenge to the RFC. | Smith | Section I is a worksheet, not the RFC; ALJ properly relied on Section III. | ALJ's reliance on Section III as the RFC is proper; Section I not controlling. |
| Whether Edelman’s conclusions were properly considered on appeal. | Smith | Edelman argument not raised in district court; waived. | Waived; no consideration on appeal. |
| Whether the five-step disability framework was properly applied. | Smith | ALJ applied five steps; Smith unable to meet past work given impairments. | Court affirms ALJ decision based on substantial evidence. |
| Whether substantial evidence supports the VE’s testimony. | Smith | VE’s testimony consistent with the record and RFC. | Substantial evidence supports the VE’s testimony. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rutherford v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 546 (3d Cir. 2005) (requires ALJ to convey credibly established limitations to VE)
- Knepp v. Apfel, 204 F.3d 78 (3d Cir. 2000) (binding findings if supported by substantial evidence)
- Poulos v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 474 F.3d 88 (3d Cir. 2007) (burden allocation at step five)
- Reefer v. Barnhart, 326 F.3d 376 (3d Cir. 2003) (definition of substantial evidence; VE testimony)