Williquette, Dustin v. Colvin, Carolyn W., 3:11-cv-00554

Background

Plaintiff Dustin Williquette applied for SSI on October 16, 2007, alleging ADHD, learning disabilities, memory loss after a 2007 car accident, and vision loss in his left eye from a 2006 BB/gunshot injury.
Administrative hearing (July 9, 2009) included testimony from Williquette, his mother, an independent medical expert (Dr. Rath), and a vocational expert; Williquette reported difficulty concentrating, need for maternal assistance, and that Adderall helped.
ALJ found severe mental impairments (cognitive disorder, ADHD, learning disability, personality disorder), but concluded the left-eye injury was nonsevere and that mental impairments did not meet listings; ALJ found moderate limits in concentration, persistence, and pace.
ALJ adopted Dr. Rath’s opinion limiting Williquette to simple, repetitive, preferably habituated tasks in no more than a moderately stressful environment and concluded he could perform past work as a hand packager.
Post-hearing neuropsychological testing (Jan. 2010) showed low-average intellectual functioning and recommended ongoing accommodations/job coach; ALJ issued decision Jan. 12, 2010; Appeals Council denied review.
District court reviewed Williquette’s challenges: (1) new evidence remand under sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), (2) failure to consider left-eye injury, (3) failure to translate moderate C/P/P limitations into VE hypotheticals, (4) failure to account for inability to sustain work.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether post-hearing neuropsychological testing requires remand under sentence six	New January 2010 testing is material and would likely change the outcome	Evidence is consistent with prior records and not likely to change the determination (not material)	Denied — evidence not material; no reasonable probability of a different outcome
Whether ALJ erred by not treating left-eye injury as limiting	ALJ failed to consider loss of depth/peripheral vision from prior injury	Medical record does not establish permanent vision loss; records show vision as good as 20/50 and self-reports of seeing	Denied — no error; claimant failed to establish a medically supported vision limitation
Whether ALJ failed to account for moderate limitations in concentration/persistence/pace in RFC and VE hypotheticals	Limitation to "simple, repetitive tasks" is insufficient to capture moderate C/P/P limits per Seventh Circuit precedent	ALJ adopted Dr. Rath’s opinion tying moderate C/P/P limits to ability to do simple, repetitive, habituated tasks; VE heard medical expert’s opinion	Denied — ALJ reasonably connected findings to RFC and VE was apprised of those limits
Whether ALJ ignored claimant’s inability to sustain work	ALJ did not address plaintiff’s demonstrated inability to maintain employment	ALJ considered checkered work history, need for assistance, and claimant’s admitted lack of motivation	Denied — claim vague; ALJ considered work history and accommodations and reasonably found not disabled

Key Cases Cited

Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (establishing "substantial evidence" standard for administrative findings)
Clifford v. Apfel, 227 F.3d 863 (court will not reweigh evidence or substitute its judgment for the ALJ)
Edwards v. Sullivan, 985 F.2d 334 (conflicting evidence permits administrative resolution)
Steele v. Barnhart, 290 F.3d 936 (ALJ must articulate reasoning to permit meaningful review)
Zurawski v. Halter, 245 F.3d 881 (ALJ must build a logical bridge from evidence to conclusion)
Perkins v. Chater, 107 F.3d 1290 (sentence-six remand requires evidence be new, material, and good cause for late submission)
Sample v. Shalala, 999 F.2d 1138 (materiality requires reasonable probability of different outcome)
O'Connor-Spinner v. Astrue, 627 F.3d 614 (VE may be deemed apprised of limitations when present at hearing and heard medical testimony)
Young v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 995 (discussion of how C/P/P limitations must be reflected in hypotheticals)
Steward v. Astrue, 561 F.3d 679 (similar guidance on framing C/P/P limitations in RFC/hypotheticals)