Vieira v. Berryhill
1:16-cv-00469
D.R.I.Aug 25, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Melody Vieira filed for SSDI and SSI; claims denied initially, on reconsideration, and by an ALJ; she sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
- Alleged impairments: cervical degenerative disc disease, right shoulder degenerative joint disease, obesity, major depressive disorder, and PTSD; prior work as casino cashier/marker.
- Functional history: reports chronic right neck/shoulder pain radiating to the arm; mental-health treatment by a psychiatrist (Dr. Gonzalez) and a therapist (Ms. Tetreault); state agency consultants reviewed records.
- ALJ found impairments severe but not meeting/listing-level; assigned an RFC for light work with limitations and concluded Vieira could perform past relevant work; denied disability.
- Vieira challenged the ALJ’s treatment of GAF scores, weighing of medical opinion evidence, and credibility findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ALJ's use of GAF scores | ALJ gave undue weight to low/high GAF scores to discredit evidence | ALJ properly noted GAFs but relied on longitudinal record and other medical evidence | Court: ALJ’s handling of GAF scores appropriate; GAFs accorded little weight where unsupported/inconsistent |
| Weighing of medical opinions | ALJ improperly discounted treating psychiatrist/therapist and relied on non‑examining state consultant | State supports reliance on non‑examining consultant because his opinion was reasoned and consistent with records | Court: ALJ permissibly gave substantial weight to state consultant and less weight to treating opinions as inconsistent with records |
| Credibility of subjective complaints | ALJ failed to follow Avery and SSR 96‑7p in evaluating symptom testimony | ALJ considered daily activities, inconsistencies, treatment, and medication effects; credibility findings entitled to deference | Court: ALJ complied with standards; credibility determination supported by substantial evidence |
| Overall denial of benefits | ALJ erred sufficiently to warrant remand | ALJ’s RFC, opinion weighting, and credibility analysis were supported by substantial evidence | Court: Affirmed ALJ decision; motions to reverse denied and to affirm granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Seavey v. Barnhart, 276 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2001) (scope of district court review of Social Security determinations)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971) (definition of "substantial evidence")
- Ortiz v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 955 F.2d 765 (1st Cir. 1991) (substantiality review requires evaluation of record as a whole)
- Arroyo v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 932 F.2d 82 (1st Cir. 1991) (treating physician opinions are not entitled to controlling weight automatically)
- Berrios‑Lopez v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 951 F.2d 427 (1st Cir. 1991) (permissible reliance on non‑examining consultant when opinion is reasoned)
- Frustaglia v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 829 F.2d 192 (1st Cir. 1987) (deference to ALJ credibility findings based on observation and demeanor)
- Hall v. Colvin, 18 F.3d 144 (D.R.I. 2014) (criticized reliance on GAF scores to discredit medical evidence)
- Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650 (4th Cir. 2005) (court may not reweigh evidence or substitute its judgment for the ALJ)