Whitfield v. US Social Security, Commissioner
1:22-cv-00280
| D.N.H. | Mar 21, 2023Background
- Plaintiff Kristine Whitfield applied for Social Security disability (DIB and SSI), alleging onset Feb. 28, 2017; claims denied administratively and initially denied by an ALJ in Nov. 2019; Appeals Council and court remands followed and claims were consolidated.
- Diagnoses included degenerative disc disease (prior L5–S1 fusion, spinal cord stimulator), migraines, depression/anxiety, substance use disorder, hypothyroidism, asthma, and obesity.
- On remand the ALJ divided the period into two segments (Feb. 28, 2017–May 31, 2019; June 1, 2019–Apr. 18, 2022) and assessed RFCs at the light-exertional level with different standing/walking and postural limits for each period.
- The ALJ rejected treating providers’ and one consultative examiner’s opinions that plaintiff was limited to sedentary or less and discounted the medical expert (Dr. Pick) whose testimony was confused; the ALJ relied on state agency reviewers for manipulative findings.
- The Appeals Council had directed the ALJ to obtain a usable medical-expert opinion about functional limitations; the ALJ obtained Dr. Pick who proved unreliable and then did not obtain a new medical expert at the later hearing.
- The ALJ relied on vocational expert testimony (including an earlier 2019 VE) to find jobs existed; the district court found the administrative record incomplete and remanded for a new orthopedic medical expert opinion (addressing reach/exertional limits) and a new vocational expert opinion based on accurate hypotheticals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ALJ evaluation of medical opinions | Whitfield: ALJ improperly discounted treating providers and ME, failing to adopt reaching limitation (occasional). | Commissioner: ALJ reasonably found treating/ME opinions unsupported/inconsistent and relied on state consultants. | Court: ALJ failed to develop an adequate medical-expert record after Appeals Council remand; record incomplete—remand required. |
| Compliance with Appeals Council remand | Whitfield: ALJ ignored order to obtain a usable medical-expert opinion. | Commissioner: ALJ obtained Dr. Pick; his testimony was considered and the ALJ addressed it. | Court: Dr. Pick’s testimony was unusable and ALJ should have obtained a different orthopedic ME as directed; remand warranted. |
| Reaching/manipulative limitation | Whitfield: ME and treating providers limited reaching to occasional; ALJ omitted this and substituted no manipulative limits. | Commissioner: State reviewers found no manipulative limits; ALJ permissibly relied on those opinions. | Court: Because ME and treating opinions conflicted with state reviewers and Appeals Council ordered an ME, the omission cannot stand without completing the ordered development—remand required. |
| Use of vocational expert testimony | Whitfield: ALJ relied on an earlier VE opinion despite vacatur and did not explain rejecting more recent VEs. | Commissioner: ALJ used proper VE opinions for each period; any misstatement was harmless or explainable. | Court: Unclear why ALJ relied on the 2019 VE after remand; remand will allow correction and proper VE testimony. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nguyen v. Chater, 172 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 1999) (scope of district-court review of ALJ legal standards and factual findings)
- Sacilowski v. Saul, 959 F.3d 431 (1st Cir. 2020) (five-step sequential evaluation and burden shift at Step Five)
- Seavey v. Barnhart, 276 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2001) (questions of law reviewed de novo)
- Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148 (2019) (definition and application of the substantial-evidence standard)
- Purdy v. Berryhill, 887 F.3d 7 (1st Cir. 2018) (consistency and supportability as key factors under current SSA opinion-regulations)
- Currier v. Sec. of Health, Ed. & Welfare, 612 F.2d 594 (1st Cir. 1980) (remand required where administrative record is incomplete per procedural directives)