Stall v. Colvin
3:14-cv-30165
D. Mass.Sep 21, 2015Background
- Plaintiff Bruce E. Stall applied for SSDI alleging onset in 2003; ALJ denied benefits in an April 9, 2013 decision, which became final after the Appeals Council denied review. Case remanded by district court.
- Medical record establishes chronic L5–S1 disc herniation with left‑greater‑than‑right radiculitis/sciatica, consistent MRI findings, and ongoing pain rated about 5–10/10 despite opioids and other meds.
- Plaintiff regularly used opioid analgesics (oxycodone/Percocet), gabapentin/Lyrica, and a muscle relaxant; he reported drowsiness, dizziness, concentration and coordination problems, and limited driving ability.
- ALJ found severe impairments, concluded plaintiff retained a sedentary RFC (sit 6 hrs, stand/walk 2 hrs, sit/stand at will, no heights/moving machinery), could not do past work, but could perform sedentary semi‑skilled jobs per vocational expert (claims clerk, information clerk, receptionist) and therefore was not disabled.
- Plaintiff challenged (1) the ALJ’s credibility finding for subjective pain, (2) failure to assess driving and mental limitations/medication side effects in the RFC and VE hypothetical, and (3) the ALJ’s treatment of transferable skills and age‑related vocational rules.
- District court granted Stall’s motion and remanded, holding the ALJ failed to provide legally sufficient credibility findings (including consideration of the Avery factors), and erred in treating transferability of skills as immaterial given the VE testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Credibility of subjective pain statements | Stall: ALJ failed to state which symptoms were rejected, gave no specific reasons, and did not apply Avery factors | Colvin: ALJ’s RFC and recitation of medical record make the credibility finding obvious | Held for Stall — ALJ failed to make specific findings, did not address Avery factors, and relied improperly on objective evidence alone to reject pain reports |
| Medication side effects / driving / concentration | Stall: Side effects (drowsiness, dizziness, poor concentration) and driving inability should have been developed and included in RFC and VE hypotheticals | Colvin: Record supports RFC and credibility determination implicitly | Held for Stall — ALJ inadequately developed record on medication side effects and driving limitations; these may affect RFC and VE testimony |
| Vocational expert hypotheticals and transferable skills | Stall: VE testimony was based on incomplete hypotheticals (no mental/side‑effect limits), and ALJ wrongly treated transferability as immaterial | Colvin: ALJ permissibly relied on Medical‑Vocational Guidelines and VE | Held for Stall — VE testimony was premised on inadequate hypotheticals; ALJ erred in deeming transferability immaterial where VE identified semi‑skilled jobs requiring transferable skills |
| Application of age rules / RFC across ages 50 and 55 | Stall: ALJ failed to make findings for periods after ages 50 and 55 re: transferability and Medical‑Vocational Rules | Colvin: ALJ said he would adjust for ages during deliberation and found not disabled under rules | Held for Stall — ALJ did not explain age‑related findings in decision; remand required for proper analysis and findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Ward v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 211 F.3d 652 (1st Cir. 2000) (standard of review — legal standards and substantial evidence)
- Nguyen v. Chater, 172 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 1999) (ALJ findings not conclusive if derived by ignoring evidence or misapplying law)
- Rodriguez v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 647 F.2d 218 (1st Cir. 1981) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Irlanda Ortiz v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 955 F.2d 765 (1st Cir. 1991) (ALJ role in credibility and factual determinations)
- Manso–Pizarro v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 76 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 1996) (remand when ALJ made legal or factual error)
- Goodermote v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 690 F.2d 5 (1st Cir. 1982) (five‑step sequential evaluation)
- Avery v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 797 F.2d 19 (1st Cir. 1986) (six‑factor pain/credibility inquiry required)
- Da Rosa v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 803 F.2d 24 (1st Cir. 1986) (ALJ must make specific findings when rejecting claimant’s testimony)
- Seavey v. Barnhart, 276 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2001) (insufficient agency explanation warrants remand)