Stec v. BERRYHILL, 4:19-cv-10044

Plaintiff Holly Stec applied for DIB and SSI alleging disability from degenerative cervical/thoracic disc disease and mental conditions; applications filed April 12, 2016 with amended onset December 31, 2015.
Administrative hearing held Dec. 8, 2017; ALJ Melissa Warner found Plaintiff not disabled on May 2, 2018; Appeals Council denied review.
Medical record: MRIs showing C5-7 and T7-8 herniations and cervical radiculopathy; repeated steroid injections often provided temporary relief; many examinations documented normal gait, strength, tone, and grip.
Plaintiff testified to pain, limited sitting/standing, Norco-related gastrointestinal issues and headaches, and functional limits; a treating performance evaluation and a treating physician later opined Plaintiff could not sustain full-time sedentary work.
ALJ assessed severe impairments (cervical/thoracic herniations and radiculopathy), found mental conditions non-severe, adopted an RFC for sedentary work with non-exertional limits (e.g., no overhead reaching, limited neck motion, no fast-paced assembly line work), and relied on a VE to identify three sedentary, unskilled jobs available nationally.
Magistrate Judge Whalen recommended granting the Commissioner’s summary judgment motion, holding the ALJ properly evaluated subjective symptoms (including alleged medication side effects) under SSR 16-3p and the record supported the RFC and non-disability finding.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ALJ improperly rejected claimant's symptom allegations (including Norco side effects) under SSR 16-3p	Stec: ALJ failed to properly consider/mention Norco side effects (runny stools, headaches) and should have included them in the RFC/hypothetical to VE	Commissioner: ALJ considered symptom allegations, asked about side effects at hearing, medical records do not corroborate side effects or work-related limits, ALJ need not include rejected allegations in RFC/hypothetical	Magistrate: ALJ satisfied SSR 16-3p and regulatory factors; lack of corroborating treating records and Plaintiff’s activities support discounting the alleged side-effect limitations — no remand warranted
Whether ALJ's RFC and VE hypothetical were supported by substantial evidence	Stec: by excluding side-effect limitations and rejecting subjective limitations, the RFC/hypothetical omitted limitations that could be work‑preclusive	Commissioner: RFC reflects supported limitations; VE jobs remain available even with sit/stand option and limited neck motion; ALJ correctly omitted uncorroborated limitations	Magistrate: RFC consistent with medical evidence and VE testimony; ALJ’s findings fall within the "zone of choice" and are supported by substantial evidence

Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148 (U.S. 2019) (explains the substantial-evidence standard for administrative findings)
Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197 (U.S. 1938) (framework for reviewing administrative records for sufficient evidence)
Rogers v. Commissioner of Social Sec., 486 F.3d 234 (6th Cir. 2007) (definition of substantial evidence and review standard)
Mullen v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 535 (6th Cir. 1986) ("zone of choice" for administrative decisionmakers)
Blakley v. Commissioner of Social Sec., 581 F.3d 399 (6th Cir. 2009) (deferral to ALJ when substantial evidence supports decision)
Cruse v. Commissioner of Social Sec., 502 F.3d 532 (6th Cir. 2007) (ALJ subjective-symptom assessments entitled to weight unless patently wrong)
Stanley v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 39 F.3d 115 (6th Cir. 1994) (ALJ not required to credit rejected allegations in VE hypothetical)
Her v. Commissioner of Social Sec., 203 F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 1999) (burden-shifting framework at step five)