Ward v. Berryhill
246 F. Supp. 3d 202
D.D.C.2017Background
- Keeva A. Ward applied for SSI and DIB, alleging disability beginning September 1, 2009; ALJ denied benefits in a December 19, 2012 decision and the Appeals Council denied review.
- The ALJ found Ward had several severe impairments (diabetes with peripheral neuropathy, obesity, bipolar disorder, PTSD, GAD, alcohol dependence in remission) and assessed an RFC for a limited range of light work.
- The ALJ concluded Ward could not perform past relevant work but could perform other work existing in significant numbers, and therefore was not disabled.
- Ward challenged the decision, arguing the ALJ failed to properly consider and weigh (1) treating physician Dr. Michelle Gaskins-Craig’s opinion limiting weight-bearing/standing/walking, (2) treating psychiatrist Dr. Rama Prayaga’s GAF=50 and related opinion, (3) state consultant Dr. Anatol Oleynick’s more restrictive opinion, (4) her hearing testimony, and (5) inadvertent use of an earlier onset date.
- The Commissioner defended the ALJ’s RFC assessment as supported by the record and argued the ALJ permissibly discounted or gave less weight to the contested opinions and considered claimant testimony.
- The magistrate judge found reversible error: the ALJ failed to mention or explain the weight given to treating physician Gaskins-Craig and inadequately addressed Dr. Prayaga and Dr. Oleynick; remand was ordered for re-evaluation under the treating-physician framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to consider/treating physician opinion (Dr. Gaskins-Craig) | ALJ omitted any analysis of treating physician who limited standing/walking — reversal/remand required | ALJ considered the record as a whole; inconsistencies justify less weight | Remand: ALJ failed to mention or weigh the treating opinion; court cannot assess whether it was considered so remand required |
| Weight to treating psychiatrist (Dr. Prayaga)/GAF 50 | ALJ did not explain weight given to GAF=50 and serious mental symptoms | GAF=50 was an outlier while other records (and missed meds) support milder scores | Remand: ALJ’s brief mention insufficient; must explain weight accorded to Dr. Prayaga’s opinion |
| Conflicting state consultative opinions (Dr. Oleynick vs other consultants) | ALJ ignored Dr. Oleynick’s more restrictive conclusions and failed to reconcile conflicts | ALJ permissibly gave great weight to other state consultants as consistent with record | Remand: ALJ did not explain why he favored some consultants over the conflicting consultative opinion; more detailed discussion required |
| Consideration of claimant testimony and onset date | ALJ failed to address testimony about cane use, swelling, needing to lie down, fatigue; and used an earlier onset date in findings | ALJ considered testimony and noted amended onset date; references to earlier date were inadvertent and not prejudicial | Court did not make further findings on these claims because remand was required on medical-opinion errors; these issues left for reconsideration on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Butler v. Barnhart, 353 F.3d 992 (D.C. Cir.) (substantial-evidence standard; reviewing court must see what evidence was credited)
- Rossello ex rel. Rossello v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 1181 (D.C. Cir.) (substantial-evidence review is highly deferential)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (Supreme Court) (definition of substantial evidence in administrative proceedings)
- Pinkney v. Astrue, 675 F. Supp. 2d 9 (D.D.C.) (ALJ must explain why contradictory evidence was ignored or rejected)
- Settles v. Colvin, 121 F. Supp. 3d 163 (D.D.C.) (treating physician rule and rejection of post hoc rationalizations)