Spencer v. Commissioner of Social Security
Civil Action No. 2018-0572
| D.D.C. | Jul 7, 2021Background
- Regina Spencer applied for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income in July 2014, alleging disability beginning May 2014; SSA denied benefits and an ALJ hearing was held in December 2016.
- In May 2017 the ALJ found Spencer had severe impairments but retained the RFC for light work with specific postural and lower-extremity limits; the ALJ found Spencer could perform past relevant work and other jobs, and therefore was not disabled.
- The ALJ gave "little weight" to Dr. Rankin’s August 2014 opinion and "partial weight" to his March 2016 assessment, relying in part on Dr. Rankin’s later treatment notes showing normal strength, range of motion, gait, and recovery after knee surgery.
- The ALJ concluded Spencer did not meet or medically equal Listing 1.02(A) (major dysfunction of a joint / ineffective ambulation) and found no medical necessity for a walker or bilateral assistive devices.
- Magistrate Judge Faruqui recommended affirmance; the district court reviewed objections de novo, adopted the R&R, and granted the Commissioner’s motion for judgment of affirmance, denying Spencer’s motion for reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ improperly discounted treating physician Dr. Rankin’s opinions in assessing RFC | Dr. Rankin’s August 2014 and March 2016 opinions should have been given controlling or greater weight and incorporated into the RFC | ALJ properly discounted/partially credited those opinions because they conflicted with contemporaneous and longitudinal treatment notes and other record evidence | Court held ALJ did not err: substantial evidence (including Dr. Rankin’s own notes) supported giving little/partial weight to his opinions |
| Whether Spencer’s knee impairment met or medically equaled Listing 1.02(A) (ineffective ambulation) | ALJ failed to consider prescriptions for and use of a cane/walker and erred in finding Spencer did not ambulate ineffectively | ALJ relied on entire record (including DDS reviewers and treatment notes showing normal gait/ambulation) and reasonably concluded Listing 1.02(A) was not met | Court held ALJ did not err: record and DDS opinions support finding that listing was not met and assistive devices were not medically necessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Butler v. Barnhart, 353 F.3d 992 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (standard for treating-physician deference and substantial-evidence review)
- Poulin v. Bowen, 817 F.2d 865 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (rationale for treating physician rule)
- Williams v. Shalala, 997 F.2d 1494 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (ALJ must explain reasons for rejecting treating physician opinion)
- Rossello ex rel. Rossello v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 1181 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (deferential standard of review to agency factfinder)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971) (definition and application of substantial-evidence standard)
- Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197 (1938) (origins of substantial-evidence concept)
- Turner v. Astrue, 710 F. Supp. 2d 95 (D.D.C. 2010) (ALJ may rely on treatment notes that contradict a physician’s opinion)
- Carnett v. Colvin, 82 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2015) (upholding ALJ reliance on DDS physician reviewers when record lacks evidence meeting listing)