Terrell v. SSA
5:16-cv-00189
E.D. Ky.Jun 14, 2017Background
- Ronald Terrell (b. 1953) applied for SSDI/SSI alleging disability from July 10, 2013; ALJ denied benefits after hearing on May 18, 2015; Appeals Council denied review.
- ALJ found severe impairments: cervical degenerative disc disease and chronic low back pain, but not presumptively disabling under the Listings.
- ALJ assessed an RFC for a range of medium work with specified limitations, discredited portions of Dr. David Winkle’s consultative opinion as based largely on claimant report, and gave great weight to state-agency consultants (Mannis and Brown).
- ALJ found Terrell’s subjective symptom testimony not entirely credible, citing inconsistent activity reports and objective medical records (including post-MRI improvement).
- Relying on a vocational expert, the ALJ found transferable skills and jobs existing in significant numbers, and denied disability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the RFC assessment improperly discounted Dr. Winkle’s opinion | Winkle’s opinion should have controlling weight and supports disability | ALJ reasonably discounted Winkle because his exam findings did not support the severe limitations and relied on claimant’s subjective reports | Court: ALJ did not err; substantial evidence supports discounting Winkle’s opinion |
| Whether the ALJ improperly assessed claimant credibility | Terrell contends ALJ erred in finding his pain testimony not fully credible | Commissioner: ALJ reasonably assessed credibility based on inconsistencies with objective findings and daily activities | Court: Credibility finding supported by substantial evidence |
| Whether ALJ erred in giving great weight to non‑examining state consultants who did not review later MRI | Consultants’ opinions omitted September 2014 MRI and thus are unreliable | ALJ considered the MRI and later records and reasonably relied on consultants’ opinions despite timeline | Court: No reversible error; ALJ properly accounted for MRI and later evidence |
| Whether Step 5 / application of Medical‑Vocational Rules (Grid) was erroneous | Plaintiff argues Grid Rule 202.02 (older individual limited to light work) mandates disability given his profile and Winkle’s lift findings | Commissioner: Winkle’s lift assessment is between light and medium; grids don’t apply directly; VE testimony properly used to find jobs | Court: ALJ permissibly relied on VE; Step 5 finding affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakley v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399 (6th Cir.) (substantial‑evidence standard and treatment of medical source opinions)
- Cutlip v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 25 F.3d 284 (6th Cir.) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Warner v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 375 F.3d 387 (6th Cir.) (ALJ may discount medical opinions based on claimant’s subjective reports)
- Walters v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 127 F.3d 525 (6th Cir.) (factors for evaluating claimant credibility and daily activities)
- Wilson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541 (6th Cir.) (use of grids vs vocational expert when limitations not captured by grids)
- Heston v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 245 F.3d 528 (6th Cir.) (VE testimony suffices when medical opinion places claimant between light and medium work)
- Longworth v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 402 F.3d 591 (6th Cir.) (court must affirm if substantial evidence supports ALJ even if record permits different conclusion)