Stephen Chismarich v. Nancy A. Berryhill
888 F.3d 978
8th Cir.2018Background
- Plaintiff Stephen P. Chismarich applied for Social Security disability benefits alleging bipolar disorder, substance addiction, knee injury, learning disability, and ADHD; the ALJ denied benefits and the Appeals Council denied review.
- The ALJ found severe impairments but concluded none met or equaled a listed impairment and assessed "moderate" limitations in social functioning, activities of daily living, and concentration/persistence/pace.
- At step four the ALJ found an RFC limiting Chismarich to simple, non-detailed tasks, infrequent/casual coworker contact, no production quotas, limited public contact, and only infrequent handling of customer complaints.
- The ALJ relied on evidence of Chismarich’s daily activities (care and transport of four young children, housekeeping, managing a house sale, negotiating with builders) and his functioning while compliant with medication.
- Chismarich argued the step-two/three psychiatric review findings were inconsistent with the step-four RFC; district court affirmed the Commissioner, and Chismarich appealed to the Eighth Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ’s step‑2/3 psychiatric findings are inconsistent with the RFC at step‑4 | ALJ’s moderate ratings (memory, following instructions, needing help) conflicted with RFC allowing understanding/remembering/carrying out simple instructions and normal pace work | Different steps have distinct purposes and precision levels; findings can be harmonized and RFC is supported by record | No reversible inconsistency; ALJ’s findings harmonized and supported by substantial evidence |
| Whether ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence | ALJ ignored or minimized limitations reflected in step‑2/3 findings | Record of activities and limited missed appointments supports ALJ’s conclusions; minor wording differences not reversible | Substantial-evidence standard met; no legal error in ALJ’s analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Fentress v. Berryhill, 854 F.3d 1016 (8th Cir. 2017) (standard of review for district court affirmance of Social Security denial)
- Igo v. Colvin, 839 F.3d 724 (8th Cir. 2016) (review focuses on substantial evidence and legal error)
- Jones v. Astrue, 619 F.3d 963 (8th Cir. 2010) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Kluesner v. Astrue, 607 F.3d 533 (8th Cir. 2010) (substantial-evidence discussion)
- Lacroix v. Barnhart, 465 F.3d 881 (8th Cir. 2006) (each step of disability analysis is separate; harmonization of findings appropriate)