Smith v. Saul, 2:19-cv-00747

Background

Tabitha Smith filed for DIB and SSI alleging disability from December 11, 2010, based primarily on lumbar degenerative disc disease/radiculopathy, migraine headaches, and related symptoms.
After administrative denial and hearing, the ALJ found severe impairments of lumbar degenerative disc disease, lumbar radiculopathy, and obesity but concluded Smith retained the RFC for sedentary work with a one-hour sit/stand option and certain postural/environmental limits.
Long‑time treating physician Susan Cavender, M.D., completed multiple function statements (2016–2018) limiting lifting to 5–25 lbs, requiring position changes every 15–30 minutes, and precluding climbing/balancing/stooping; a VE testified those limitations would eliminate all work.
The ALJ gave Cavender’s opinions only partial weight, citing internal inconsistencies and lack of support from objective findings (normal gait/station, full strength on many exams, mild imaging after surgery, limited treatment adherence).
The ALJ relied on consultative and pain‑management records, post‑op exams, and VE testimony identifying alternative sedentary occupations; the Appeals Council denied review.
The magistrate judge recommended affirming the Commissioner, finding the ALJ’s evaluation of treating‑source opinions and RFC supported by substantial evidence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the ALJ properly weighed treating physician Dr. Cavender’s opinions	Cavender’s long‑term treating‑source opinions were entitled to controlling weight and the ALJ failed to apply the regulatory treating‑physician factors properly	ALJ reasonably discounted Cavender’s opinions for internal inconsistency and lack of support in the record; he need not repeat every factor verbatim	ALJ gave adequate reasons (inconsistency/supportability) for only partial weight; evaluation upheld
Whether the RFC is supported by substantial evidence	RFC is unsupported because ALJ rejected Cavender’s limitations that the VE said would preclude all work	RFC reflects reasonable accommodation of objective findings and other medical opinions; claimant asks court to reweigh evidence	RFC supported by substantial evidence; court may not reweigh conflicts; decision affirmed
Whether the ALJ erred by not addressing uncontested VE testimony that Cavender’s restrictions preclude employment	ALJ failed to reconcile VE testimony that Cavender’s restrictions eliminate all jobs	VE also testified that Cavender’s limitations would produce less than an eight‑hour workday; ALJ adequately relied on alternative VE testimony tied to ALJ’s RFC	No reversible error — the VE supported jobs for the RFC the ALJ adopted; claimant waived detailed argument on this point
Whether reversal or remand for benefits is required	Given VE testimony and treating‑source opinions, remand for benefits is warranted	Record contains substantial contrary evidence; remand is not warranted	Remand for benefits denied; recommendation to affirm Commissioner and dismiss case

Key Cases Cited

Blalock v. Richardson, 483 F.2d 773 (4th Cir. 1972) (defines "substantial evidence" standard)
Hall v. Harris, 658 F.2d 260 (4th Cir. 1981) (step‑four prima facie case framework)
McLamore v. Weinberger, 538 F.2d 572 (4th Cir. 1976) (Commissioner must show jobs exist in national economy)
McLain v. Schweiker, 715 F.2d 866 (4th Cir. 1983) (burden shift to Commissioner at step five)
DeLoatche v. Heckler, 715 F.2d 148 (4th Cir. 1983) (ALJ must give "good reasons" when declining to adopt treating‑physician opinions)
Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585 (4th Cir. 1996) (court will not reweigh evidence or make credibility determinations)
Woods v. Berryhill, 888 F.3d 686 (4th Cir. 2018) (standards for evaluating treating‑source opinions and ALJ’s explanatory duty)
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) (procedural rule regarding objections to magistrate recommendations)