Tracy Milam v. Carolyn W. Colvin
794 F.3d 978
8th Cir.2015Background
- Tracy Milam applied for SSDI, alleging disability from August 31, 2009, due to back, knee, hip pain, and osteoporosis; she previously worked 20 years as a secretary/administrative assistant.
- Medical record: longstanding scoliosis with Harrington rod, intermittent degenerative cervical/lumbar findings on imaging, conservative treatment, sporadic treatment gaps (notably 2007–2011), and mixed physician opinions about functional capacity.
- Treating physician Dr. Sprinkle ultimately opined extreme limits (sit/stand <2 hours/day) in October 2012 but earlier notes and a June 2012 letter said she "may return to work" with restrictions; independent consultative and nonexamining physicians found milder limitations (able to sit/stand ≈6 hours/day or moderate limitations).
- Function evidence: Milam kept a pain journal showing mostly low-to-moderate pain scores, performed many household activities (cooking, cleaning, shopping, exercise), received unemployment benefits and sought work after layoff, and submitted coworker statements about workplace absenteeism.
- ALJ hearing: vocational expert (VE) testified a person missing 1–2 days/month could perform Milam’s past work; missing 3–5 days/month would be unemployable. ALJ adopted an RFC allowing sedentary work with sit 4–6 hours, stand 2–3 hours, option to sit/stand at will, occasional postural limits, and 1–2 days/month missed.
- Procedural posture: ALJ denied benefits; Appeals Council denied review; district court affirmed; Eighth Circuit affirmed (majority) but Judge Bye dissented, arguing the absenteeism issue required remand.
Issues
| Issue | Milam's Argument | Government/ALJ Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weight given treating physician Dr. Sprinkle | ALJ improperly discredited Dr. Sprinkle’s restrictive RFC (sitting/standing <2 hrs/day) | Dr. Sprinkle’s extreme opinion conflicted with his own notes and other physicians’ findings; earlier notes said she "may return to work" | Affirmed: ALJ permissibly discounted treating opinion as inconsistent with record and physician's own notes |
| Credibility of Milam’s subjective pain complaints | ALJ failed to credit her constant, severe pain and testimony of frequent work absences | ALJ cited unemployment claims, conservative treatment, long gaps in care, daily activities, and inconsistent record as reasons to discount credibility | Affirmed: substantial evidence supports ALJ’s adverse credibility finding |
| Reliance on VE testimony about absenteeism | VE/ALJ testimony inadequate because Milam said she missed 3–5 days/month | VE distinguished consistent absenteeism tolerated by employers; ALJ included only limitations supported by record (1–2 days/month) in hypothetical | Affirmed: VE testimony based on a proper hypothetical constituted substantial evidence |
| Whether ALJ should develop record further on absenteeism (dissent) | Absenteeism evidence from coworkers and Milam warranted development and likely remand | ALJ found absenteeism not supported by objective medical evidence and initially left record open but later declined subpoena, treating the issue as immaterial | Dissent: Judge Bye would remand for further development on absenteeism; majority declined, finding error not reversible |
Key Cases Cited
- Pelkey v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 575 (de novo review of district court’s affirmance; standard for substantial evidence)
- House v. Astrue, 500 F.3d 741 (treating physician controlling-weight framework)
- Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320 (factors for evaluating subjective complaints of pain)
- Hacker v. Barnhart, 459 F.3d 934 (treating physician inconsistency undermines opinion)
- Cruze v. Chater, 85 F.3d 1320 (ALJ hypothetical need include only limitations supported by record)
- Douglas v. Bowen, 836 F.2d 392 (absenteeism in excess of one or two days/month may render claimant unemployable)