Waldron v. Commissioner of Social Security
1:11-cv-00340
N.D. Ind.Oct 12, 2012Background
- Waldron applied for SSI in 2005 alleging disability since 2004; the Commissioner denied, and the denial was upheld on reconsideration and by the Appeals Council, making the ALJ’s 2008 decision the final decision reviewed.
- Anita Waldron, age 31 at the decision, with a high school education, had past work as a cashier/kitchen helper; she claimed PTSD, hearing loss, personality disorder, depression, and obesity as mental impairments central to disability.
- An ALJ held a video hearing on April 25, 2008 and issued an unfavorable ruling on August 19, 2008, finding she could perform a limited number of jobs with restrictions.
- Waldron challenged the decision alleging improper weighing of the opinions of Ellsworth (psychiatric nurse) and Jones (mental health therapist) and that the Hoosier Assurance Plan Instrument (HAPI) was cherry-picked.
- The record shows extensive Park Center treatment from 2004–2008, with GAF scores ranging roughly from 50 to 70, and notes that Waldron regressed when off medications but improved with treatment.
- The ALJ’s RFC limited Waldron to light work with limited hearing, avoidance of noise/hazards/vibrations, simple tasks, and only occasional contact with others; these findings shaped the step four and five determinations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weight of Ellsworth and Jones opinions | Ellsworth/Jones support disability; ALJ erred in discounting. | ALJ properly weighed opinions; other sources less probative. | ALJ’s discount of Ellsworth/Jones supported by substantial evidence. |
| Consideration of HAPI report | ALJ cherry-picked by ignoring earlier strong observations. | ALJ appropriately discounted subjective HAPI findings. | ALJ adequately articulated why HAPI was discounted. |
| RFC and overall mental impairment assessment | RFC did not reflect severity of symptoms. | RFC consistent with medical evidence and expert opinions. | RFC supported by substantial evidence and properly used at steps four/five. |
| GAF score discussion | ALJ failed to discuss a GAF of 50. | GAF discussion not required; narrative records cited. | Failure to mention GAF did not warrant remand. |
| Compliance with SSR 06-03P / treating-source factors | ALJ misapplied factors for evaluating other sources. | ALJ properly considered treatment history and specialties. | ALJ adequately complied with 20 C.F.R. § 416.927 and SSR 06-03P. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmidt v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 737 (7th Cir. 2005) (substantial evidence standard; not a rubber-stamp review)
- Clifford v. Apfel, 227 F.3d 863 (7th Cir. 2000) (judicial review of ALJ’s legal standards)
- Cannon v. Apfel, 213 F.3d 970 (7th Cir. 2000) (courts not to substitute judgment after reweighing evidence)
- Young v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 995 (7th Cir. 2004) (court may not reweigh evidence or credibility; defer to ALJ)
- Dixon v. Massanari, 270 F.3d 1171 (7th Cir. 2001) (five-step analysis; burden distribution)