Tassel v. Astrue
882 F. Supp. 2d 143
D. Me.2012Background
- SSD/SSI claimant appeals ALJ decision regarding disability during May 1, 2003–Feb. 9, 2010 closed period
- Plaintiff contends cognitive impairment was severe and not properly accounted for in RFC and past work analysis
- ALJ found insured status through Sept. 30, 2007, and that impairments were severe but did not meet Listings
- RFC limited to light work with various restrictions; could not perform past relevant work; found some jobs in the national economy
- ALJ relied on state agency review and denied disability from March 1, 2007 onward; DRL testimony and college achievements weighed against claimed limitations
- Court’s final decision affirms the Commissioner’s denial of benefits during the period at issue
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether cognitive impairment was a severe impairment at Step 2 | Plaintiff argues cognitive disorder due to fatigue was not properly considered | Defendant contends ALJ properly weighed clinical evidence and found no severe impairment | No reversible error; no substantial evidence shows error at Step 2 |
| RFC supported by medical evidence | RFC lacks support from Dr. Lauer and others | ALJ reasonably weighed treating/consulting sources and Lonely evidence supports RFC | RFC supported by substantial evidence; no remand for RFC issue |
| Weight given to Dr. Lauer and other medical opinions | ALJ failed to appropriately weigh Dr. Lauer’s findings consistent with other opinions | ALJ gave good reasons for discounting Dr. Lauer; substantial evidence supports weighting | ALJ’s treatment of Dr. Lauer’s opinion proper; no reversible error |
| Step 5 and VE testimony consistency | VE testimony not reconciled with RFC and past work limits | No requirement to reconcile every nuance; VE testimony consistent with RFC | No error; VE testimony supports cited non-past relevant work |
| Reliance on state agency opinions | RFC and credibility rely on mild state agency findings | RFC more favorable to plaintiff than state agency; no remand for error | No reversible error; Commissioner’s decision affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodermote v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 690 F.2d 5 (1st Cir. 1982) (framework for substantial evidence review in SSA decisions)
- Manso-Pizarro v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 76 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 1996) (substantial evidence standard in disability determinations)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (Supreme Court 1971) (substantial evidence standard and administrative proceedings)
- Rodriguez v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 647 F.2d 218 (1st Cir. 1981) (medical evidence and RFC evaluation considerations)
- Rosado v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 807 F.2d 292 (1st Cir. 1986) (Steps of SSA evaluation and burden allocations)
- Ferrante v. Astrue, 755 F. Supp. 2d 206 (D. Me. 2010) (district court addressing evaluation of medical opinions and RFC)