Thompson v. Commissioner of Social Security
5:13-cv-01223
W.D. Okla.Oct 23, 2014Background
- Plaintiff Doris Thompson sought disability insurance and Supplemental Security Income; ALJ denied benefits and Commissioner’s decision was appealed to district court.
- Case referred to Magistrate Judge; Magistrate recommends reversal and remand for further proceedings.
- At issue is the ALJ’s residual functional capacity (RFC) finding that Plaintiff can perform light work.
- ALJ gave "little weight" to treating/consultative opinions of Dr. Larry Ruffin and overlooked opinions and exam findings from Dr. Dinelle Pineda that support greater limitations (e.g., limited neck ROM, spinal tenderness, lifting limits).
- MRI reports (lumbar and cervical) including a finding of severe left C5-6 foraminal stenosis were not fully considered by the ALJ.
- Magistrate concluded the ALJ’s failure to evaluate Dr. Pineda’s opinion and MRI interpretations was not harmless and remand is required because credited opinions could eliminate jobs the VE identified (each requiring frequent reaching).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ properly considered all medical source opinions in assessing RFC | ALJ ignored/failed to evaluate Dr. Pineda’s exam and opinion and did not reconcile them with Dr. Ruffin’s lifting/reaching limits | ALJ treated Dr. Ruffin’s opinion as inconsistent with the record and relied on MRI results to support light work RFC | Remand: ALJ failed to evaluate Dr. Pineda’s opinions and interpretive MRI findings; must reassess weight of medical opinions and RFC |
| Whether ALJ’s errors were harmless given VE testimony identifying alternate jobs | Plaintiff: if treating/consultative limits credited, the five identified jobs requiring frequent reaching would be eliminated | Defendant: reliance on VE jobs supports non-disability determination | Held for Plaintiff: errors are not harmless because credited limitations could eliminate all identified jobs |
| Whether adjudicator must reassess treatment relationship weight | Plaintiff: ALJ should determine the extent of treatment relationship for Dr. Ruffin | Defendant: ALJ implicit about relationship in discounting opinion | Held: On remand, adjudicator should evaluate the treatment relationship and reassess opinion weight |
| Whether remaining step-five issues should be addressed now | Plaintiff wants additional errors reviewed | Defendant defends ALJ’s step-five findings | Held: Court declines to reach other step-five issues because they may be affected by ALJ’s treatment of medical opinions on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Astrue, 602 F.3d 1136 (10th Cir. 2010) (review standard: factual findings must be supported by substantial evidence and correct legal standards applied)
- Watkins v. Barnhart, 350 F.3d 1297 (10th Cir. 2003) (errors at earlier steps may make later issues moot; court may limit review when remand could affect remaining issues)
- Doyal v. Barnhart, 331 F.3d 758 (10th Cir. 2003) (ALJ must evaluate every medical opinion of record)