834 F. Supp. 2d 1295
N.D. Okla.2011Background
- Wilson was 19 at the August 4, 2009 hearing and had hearing and vision impairments, with no vision in his left eye since age 12.
- He attended Tulsa Public Schools, largely in special education, with multiple suspensions and grade repetitions in middle/high school.
- Historical medical evidence includes a 2004 school psychological assessment showing dysthymic disorder, anxiety, and borderline intellectual functioning.
- A 2007 WAIS-III-based assessment placed Wilson's overall cognitive ability in the borderline range; a 2008 Psychiatric Review noted learning disabilities and dysthymic disorder.
- Wilson previously received SSI benefits as a child but was found not disabled as of his 18th birthday (June 1, 2008); an ALJ denied disability benefits beginning at age 18, and the Appeals Council denied review.
- The ALJ concluded Wilson was not disabled due to residual functional capacity supporting work in the national economy, ending his disability status at 18.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Step Five burden and VE-DOT conflict | Wilson argues several identified jobs should be excluded due to DOT-noise conflicts. | Commissioner contends VE accommodated conflicts; remaining jobs support Step Five. | Step Five supported; conflicts resolved; substantial evidence remains. |
| Weight of medical opinions | Wilson asserts Dr. Smallwood’s opinion is internally inconsistent with Paragraph B and inconsistent with Dr. Atwood. | Commissioner argues opinions are consistent and properly weighed, forming substantial evidence for RFC. | No reversible error; ALJ properly weighed both opinions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Haddock v. Apfel, 196 F.3d 1084 (10th Cir. 1999) (burden shift to show significant number of jobs at Step Five; VE conflicts with DOT must be reconciled)
- Rogers v. Astrue, 312 Fed.Appx. 138 (10th Cir. 2009) (unpublished; VE testimony can support Step Five where DOT conflict resolved)
- Barrett v. Astrue, 340 Fed.Appx. 481 (10th Cir. 2009) (even when some VE-identified jobs are questionable, remaining jobs can sustain Step Five)
- Norris v. Barnhart, 197 F. App’x 771 (10th Cir. 2006) (separate MRFC findings do not necessarily conflict with examining physician’s opinions)