Todd v. Berryhill, 2:16-cv-06184

Background

Teresa Ann Todd applied for Title II disability insurance benefits alleging onset March 24, 2012; ALJ denied benefits March 19, 2015; Appeals Council denied review and claimant sought district-court review.
ALJ found claimant severe impairments including degenerative disc/joint disease, prior carpal tunnel with release, obesity, depression/anxiety, hemochromatosis; RFC: sedentary work with multiple nonexertional limits and frequent bilateral handling/fingering.
Prior ALJ (March 23, 2012) had found a less restrictive RFC (light work with 30-min sit/stand option and limited fine manipulation of the left hand); claimant argued the current ALJ should have adopted those prior limitations under Acquiescence/Albright principles.
Claimant relied on a December 2013 treating-source check-box assessment (completed by an FNP and signed by PCP Dr. Newell) that imposed severe sit/stand and manipulation limits; ALJ gave that opinion no weight.
The ALJ relied on later evidence (state consultative examination, treating notes reflecting improvement/resolution of carpal tunnel, and new knee/hip evidence) and vocational expert testimony to conclude claimant could perform representative sedentary jobs; decision recommended for affirmation.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Weight to treating FNP/PCP opinions	Todd: ALJ should have given substantial/controlling weight to the December 2013 form limiting sit/stand, sitting time, standing time, and manipulative ability	Berryhill: The ALJ permissibly discounted the form as a check-box with little support, largely based on claimant statements and not a treating physician’s clinical findings	ALJ reasonably gave no weight to the form — it lacked objective support and tracked claimant’s subjective reports rather than medical findings
Prior ALJ findings / Acquiescence (Albright)	Todd: ALJ erred by failing to adopt prior ALJ’s sit/stand option and left-hand fine manipulation limits	Berryhill: ALJ gave significant weight to prior decision but was not bound because there was new and material evidence changing RFC	ALJ permissibly declined to adopt prior RFC in full because new and material evidence warranted a different RFC (reduced to sedentary but with no sit/stand option and improved manipulative findings)
Manipulative limitations (carpal tunnel)	Todd: ALJ’s frequent bilateral handling/fingering finding is unsupported	Berryhill: Postoperative improvement, state consultative findings of normal fine manipulation, and treating notes removing CTS support ALJ’s finding	ALJ’s conclusion that manipulation improved is supported by record (exam findings, state reviews, treating notes) and substantial evidence
Vocational expert reliance / hypothetical	Todd: VE testimony should have accounted for sit/stand alternation and manipulative limits from treating sources	Berryhill: ALJ was not required to present hypotheticals that included limitations unsupported by the record	VE testimony based on RFC that reflected only credibly established limitations was proper; VE said frequent alternation would preclude work, but ALJ was not required to adopt that unsubstantiated limitation

Key Cases Cited

Blalock v. Richardson, 483 F.2d 773 (4th Cir. 1972) (defines substantial evidence standard)
Albright v. Commissioner of Social Security, 174 F.3d 473 (4th Cir. 1999) (treatment of prior ALJ findings in subsequent claims)
Martin v. Secretary of Health, Education & Welfare, 492 F.2d 905 (4th Cir. 1974) (limits on relying solely on non-examining physician when contradicted)
Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585 (4th Cir. 1996) (medical opinions must be supported by clinical evidence to be controlling)
Grant v. Schweiker, 699 F.2d 189 (4th Cir. 1983) (nonexertional limitations do not always preclude reliance on the grids)
Russell v. Barnhart, [citation="58 F. App'x 25"] (4th Cir. 2003) (hypotheticals to VEs need only include limitations supported by the record)