451 F.Supp.3d 744
E.D. Mich.2020Background
- Plaintiff Daryl Springer applied for Social Security disability benefits alleging severe back disorders, lumbar radiculopathy, depression/anxiety, and excessive daytime sleepiness; initial ALJ denied benefits, district court remanded, and ALJ again denied benefits after a second hearing.
- At the second hearing the ALJ adopted an RFC for light work with occasional postural limits, avoidance of hazards, low-stress/simple routine work; the VE testified certain light and sedentary jobs existed in significant numbers.
- The VE estimated large national job numbers (e.g., garment sorter, nut/bolt assembler, inspector) and said estimates were based on Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data plus her 20+ years of experience, but she could not explain the methodology or produce underlying calculations.
- The ALJ discounted portions of Springer's subjective symptom testimony and gave little or no weight to several treating-physician opinions as inconsistent with the record; the court upheld those credibility and weight findings.
- The district court reversed and remanded only on Step Five, finding the ALJ failed to build a logical bridge explaining why the VE’s experience-based job-number estimates were reliable and thus the ALJ’s reliance on them was not supported by substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. ALJ discounting of physical symptom statements | Springer: ALJ improperly relied on lack of objective corroboration and cherry-picked records | Commissioner: ALJ permissibly weighed objective findings, treatment notes, and plaintiff statements | Held: ALJ's credibility findings on physical symptoms supported by substantial evidence; no reversible error |
| 2. ALJ discounting of mental symptom statements | Springer: ALJ improperly penalized failure to follow-up on mental health care (could be symptom of disorder) and ignored evidence of severe depression/GAF 50 | Commissioner: ALJ reasonably relied on consultative and treating notes showing intact functioning and limited restrictions | Held: ALJ's assessment of mental symptoms supported by substantial evidence; no reversible error |
| 3. Weight given to treating physicians' opinions | Springer: ALJ failed to provide good reasons for discounting treating opinions (Eckel, Zinkel, Guerrero) | Commissioner: ALJ gave specific, record-supported reasons showing inconsistency with other evidence | Held: ALJ provided adequate reasons under controlling-weight rule; no reversible error |
| 4. Reliance on VE testimony at Step Five | Springer: VE job-number estimates unreliable because she could not explain methods or produce data | Commissioner: VE testimony permissible; ALJ may rely on VE experience and BLS data | Held: Remand required — ALJ failed to explain why VE’s experience/BLS-based job numbers were reliable and did not build a logical bridge to support Step Five finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowen v. Comm'r of Social Security, 478 F.3d 742 (6th Cir. 2007) (review limited to substantial evidence and correct legal standards)
- Rogers v. Comm'r of Social Security, 486 F.3d 234 (6th Cir. 2007) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Cutlip v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 25 F.3d 284 (6th Cir. 1994) (substantial-evidence standard explained)
- Cole v. Astrue, 661 F.3d 931 (6th Cir. 2011) (ALJ must follow agency rules; failure denotes lack of substantial evidence)
- White v. Comm'r of Social Security, 572 F.3d 272 (6th Cir. 2009) (ALJ may weigh and ‘‘cherry pick’’ evidence by weighing record)
- Gayheart v. Comm'r of Social Security, 710 F.3d 365 (6th Cir. 2013) (treating-physician rule and requirement to give good reasons for discounting)
- Jones v. Comm'r of Social Security, 336 F.3d 469 (6th Cir. 2003) (burden shifts to Commissioner at Step Five to identify significant jobs)
- Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148 (2019) (VE testimony can be substantial evidence only if it has sufficient indicia of reliability)
- Chavez v. Berryhill, 895 F.3d 962 (7th Cir. 2018) (VE must provide reasoned and principled explanation; ALJ must build logical bridge)
- Bailey v. Comm'r of Social Security, [citation="413 F. App'x 853"] (6th Cir. 2011) (ALJ must give specific reasons for crediting or discrediting claimant testimony)