Stephanie Hill v. Commissioner Of Social Security
560 F. App'x 547
6th Cir.2014Background
- Stephanie Hill stopped working in 2007 and applied in 2010 for disability insurance benefits and SSI, claiming physical (scoliosis, degenerative arthritis, knee osteoarthritis, neck/back pain, migraines) and mental (bipolar disorder, anxiety, PTSD) impairments.
- An ALJ found Hill unable to perform past relevant work but capable of light/medium work and denied benefits; Appeals Council denied review; district court affirmed; Hill appealed to the Sixth Circuit.
- Dr. Yoglesh Malla (treating pain-management specialist) opined Hill was disabled based on degenerative spine and knee conditions; his notes and imaging results showed only mild or no osteoarthritis and largely normal function on exam.
- Non-treating reviewers (Dr. David Swann and state psychological reviewers) and an impartial psychological expert (Dr. Tom Wagner) assessed greater functional capacity than Hill’s treating sources and therapist asserted.
- Hill’s therapist (Charles Cox) submitted an ‘‘other source’’ opinion describing severe mental limitations; Cox’s treatment notes, Hill’s reported daily activities (caring for her child, managing household/finances), and objective records conflicted with those extreme limitations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Treating-physician weight for Dr. Malla | ALJ improperly rejected treating physician; Malla’s disability opinion should be controlling | ALJ gave valid, evidence-supported reasons to discount Malla (imaging and exam findings, treatment notes, other providers, daily activities) | Affirmed: ALJ gave good reasons to give little/no weight to Malla; substantial evidence supports that decision |
| Crediting non-treating reviewer Dr. Swann over Malla | Swann’s opinion unreliable because he signed a form prepared by state decisionmaker | Swann’s opinion is supported by the same substantial evidence that undermined Malla | Affirmed: ALJ permissibly credited Swann given record support |
| Weight given to therapist Charles Cox (other source) | ALJ failed to properly consider or defer to Cox’s post-hearing statement and limitations | Cox is not an ‘‘acceptable medical source’’; ALJ considered Cox as an other source and reasonably discounted his extreme findings based on record inconsistencies | Affirmed: ALJ adequately considered Cox and explained reasons for little/no weight |
| Weight given to impartial psychological expert (Dr. Wagner) | ALJ erred by saying Wagner received "controlling weight" | Wagner is not a treating source but ALJ considered all mental-health opinions and relied on Wagner as best supported by record | Harmless error: labeling was imprecise but overall analysis complied with regulations and is supported by substantial evidence |
| Combined impairments and PTSD severity | ALJ failed to consider combined effects (bipolar, obesity) and omitted PTSD as severe impairment | ALJ explicitly addressed combination of impairments and found no listing met or equaled; PTSD inclusion would not change functional assessment and claimant cites no supporting evidence | Affirmed: combined-effects argument and PTSD claim waived/meritless |
| Vocational expert hypothetical accuracy | VE hypothetical omitted Dr. Freudenberger’s 2-hour concentration segment limitation, so ALJ’s step-5 finding is unsupported | ALJ’s hypothetical matched the mental limitations she adopted (from Wagner) and need only include limitations the ALJ finds supported | Affirmed: VE testimony based on accurate hypothetical provided substantial evidence of jobs claimant can perform |
Key Cases Cited
- Kyle v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 609 F.3d 847 (6th Cir. 2010) (standard for substantial-evidence review)
- Wilson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541 (6th Cir. 2004) (treating-physician rule and requirement to give good reasons when not controlling)
- Leeman v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 449 F. App’x 496 (6th Cir. 2011) (treatment notes can undermine treating physician’s opinion)
- Francis v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 414 F. App’x 802 (6th Cir. 2011) (daily activities and other treating records may conflict with restrictive opinions)
- Johnson v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 652 F.3d 646 (6th Cir. 2011) (consideration of state-agency reviewer forms)
- Gayheart v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365 (6th Cir. 2013) (distinguishing ‘‘controlling weight’’ language and requirement to weigh all opinions)
- Bass v. McMahon, 499 F.3d 506 (6th Cir. 2007) (harmless-error doctrine in administrative decisions)
- Atterberry v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 871 F.2d 567 (6th Cir. 1989) (weight of objective record and impartial expert opinion)
- Loy v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 901 F.2d 1306 (6th Cir. 1990) (consideration of combined impairments)
- Higgs v. Bowen, 880 F.2d 860 (6th Cir. 1988) (disability depends on functional limitations, not diagnosis)
- Ealy v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 594 F.3d 504 (6th Cir. 2010) (vocational expert testimony must rest on hypotheticals that accurately portray the claimant’s limitations)