Stout v. Commissioner of Social Security
2:18-cv-00485
| S.D. Ohio | Dec 5, 2019Background:
- Plaintiff Penny Sue Stout applied for Social Security Disability Insurance in April 2014 alleging post‑meningitic syndrome with daily headaches, fatigue, tremors, memory/speech lapses, and limited lifting capacity; she stopped working in February 2014.
- Two episodes of bacterial meningitis (2013, 2014); treating ENT Dr. Subinoy Das diagnosed inverted papilloma, suspected idiopathic intracranial hypertension initially, and later attributed Plaintiff’s symptoms to post‑meningitic syndrome and chronic severe headaches.
- Dr. Das completed medical assessments asserting variable/incipient incapacitation (sitting/standing/walking, manipulative coordination, vision/speech) tied to fluctuating intracranial pressure and severe headaches; he later described headaches as "well controlled" on narcotics.
- Two state agency physicians assessed physical RFC consistent with light work and few limitations; neurology and other consultative notes were largely unremarkable (normal 24‑hour intracranial pressure monitoring, largely normal neuro exams) and questioned analgesic overuse/rebound headaches.
- The ALJ adopted an RFC for light work with postural and environmental limits, simple routine tasks, and off‑task up to 5%; the ALJ gave "little weight" to Dr. Das’s opinions (vagueness and inconsistency with objective evidence) and "great weight" to state consultants.
- The Magistrate Judge recommended affirming the Commissioner; the district court conducted de novo review, overruled Plaintiff’s objection, adopted the R&R, and affirmed the denial of benefits.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ violated the treating‑physician rule by not giving Dr. Das controlling weight | Stout: ALJ failed to give "good reasons"; Dr. Das is a treating specialist and his opinions should control if supported | Commissioner: ALJ gave specific, valid reasons—opinions vague, internally inconsistent, and contrary to objective tests and treating/consultative notes | Court: No error; ALJ provided adequate "good reasons" and substantial evidence supports discounting Dr. Das |
| Whether ALJ erred by excluding limitations from RFC based on Dr. Das’s findings (e.g., incapacitating headaches, variable ability to sit/stand) | Stout: ALJ should have translated Dr. Das’s functional limitations into vocational terms and included them in the RFC | Commissioner: Dr. Das’s descriptions were non‑specific/vague and conflicted with normal testing and later notes; ALJ may decline to adopt non‑vocational, conclusory limitations | Court: Held ALJ permissibly rejected vague/incapacitating characterizations that could not be translated into concrete RFC limits; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Ealy v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 594 F.3d 504 (6th Cir. 2010) (review limited to whether Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and proper legal standards)
- Rogers v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234 (6th Cir. 2007) (substantial‑evidence standard and treating‑physician rule framework)
- Hensley v. Astrue, 573 F.3d 263 (6th Cir. 2009) (ALJ must articulate reasons for the weight given to a treating source)
- LaRiccia v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., [citation="549 F. App'x 377"] (6th Cir. 2013) (treating‑physician controlling‑weight standard explained)