Wierzba-Wysong v. Commissioner of Social Security, 3:12-cv-00015

Plaintiff Janet Wierzba-Wysong applied for DIB and SSI alleging disability since 2001, later amended to 2005.
ALJ McNichols held a hearing in 2010 and found Plaintiff not disabled; ME and VE testified at the second hearing.
Appeals Council denied review; the denial became the Commissioner’s final decision.
Plaintiff challenges the weight given to treating physicians, the VE hypothetical, and credibility findings.
Court reviews for substantial evidence and correct legal standards under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and § 1383(c).
ALJ found a residual functional capacity for a modified light work with specific limits and concluded existence of other jobs in the national economy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Weight given to treating physicians	Wierzba-Wysong argues treating opinions should have controlling/deferential weight.	Commissioner contends ALJ properly weighed and did not err in devaluing those opinions.	No reversible error; substantial evidence supports ALJ's weight assignment.
Hypothetical to VE	Hypothetical failed to reflect limitations from treating sources.	Hypothetical accurately depicted the RFC and impairments.	VE testimony consistent with RFC; no error in step five analysis.
Plaintiff’s credibility	ALJ over-discredited Plaintiff’s subjective complaints.	ALJ properly considered credibility with enumerated factors and substantial evidence.	Credibility assessment supported by substantial evidence.
Step Five analysis	RFC requires greater concentration than found; error in concluding availability of jobs.	RFC includes low-stress, simple tasks; unskilled jobs exist consistent with the VE.	Step Five analysis upheld; substantial evidence supports availability of jobs.

Cruse v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 502 F.3d 532 (6th Cir. 2007) (treating-physician weight framework)
Blakley v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399 (6th Cir. 2009) (good reasons required when not giving controlling weight)
Walters v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 127 F.3d 525 (6th Cir. 1997) (opinion must be well-supported and not inconsistent with record)
Buxton v. Halter, 246 F.3d 762 (6th Cir. 2001) (zone of choice in reviewing ALJ determinations)
Rabbers v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 582 F.3d 647 (6th Cir. 2009) (reviewing the correctness of legal analyses in SSA decisions)
Felisky v. Bowen, 35 F.3d 1027 (6th Cir. 1994) (framework for evaluating disability determinations)
Casey v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 987 F.2d 1230 (6th Cir. 1993) (court's deference to ALJ’s factual determinations under substantial evidence)
Ealy v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 594 F.3d 504 (6th Cir. 2010) (reliance on VE and RFC in step-five determinations)
Heston v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 245 F.3d 528 (6th Cir. 2001) (credibility evaluation standards)