Wilson v. Colvin
218 F. Supp. 3d 439
E.D. Pa.2016Background
- Wilson (b. 1973) applied for SSI on July 31, 2012 alleging cervical/neck, back, shoulder injuries and hand numbness; prior SSI applications (2005, 2009, 2011) were previously denied.
- ALJ held a hearing (Nov. 19, 2013), considered consultative exam by Dr. David Chomsky and treating records, and found severe impairments including back disorder, eye disorder, depression, COPD, and chronic pain.
- ALJ assessed RFC as capable of limited light work with numerous restrictions, including an at-will sit/stand option and limits on lifting/pushing/pulling and fingering, and relied on a vocational expert to find jobs available.
- ALJ gave “very, very little weight” to Wilson’s testimony, citing among other things failure to file tax returns from his boxing income; Appeals Council denied review, making ALJ decision final.
- District court reviewed Magistrate Judge’s R&R (which had recommended denial of review), sustained two of Wilson’s objections, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| (1) ALJ’s treatment of Dr. Chomsky’s opinion | ALJ failed to explain partial rejection of Chomsky’s opinions (sit/stand; carrying/lifting), violating Burnett/Cotter | ALJ largely credited Chomsky and need not discuss every piece of evidence | Court: Remand — ALJ did not reconcile Chomsky’s carrying opinion (cannot carry 10 lbs) with RFC for light work and must state weights/reasons for opinions used or rejected |
| (2) Credibility finding | Wilson: ALJ relied almost exclusively on failure to file taxes and did not apply SSR 96-7p factors | Commissioner: ALJ gave valid, supported credibility reasons and is entitled to deference | Court: Remand — credibility assessment was inadequately explained and must apply SSR 96-7p factors |
| (3) Duty to obtain psychiatric/state-expert opinion for Listing equivalence (step 3) | Wilson: SSR 96-6p required ALJ to obtain state psychologist/psychiatrist opinion on equivalence | Commissioner: SSR 96-6p does not impose affirmative duty; record was sufficient | Court: Overruled — no such affirmative duty; any failure was harmless because Wilson never alleged disabling mental impairment |
| (4) Reopening prior SSI applications | Wilson: ALJ miscalculated timeliness and wrongly refused to reopen prior claims | Commissioner: ALJ erred as to 2011 application but properly exercised discretion; refusal generally not judicially reviewable | Court: Overruled — ALJ erred on 2011 timeliness but refusal to reopen prior years is discretionary and largely unreviewable; Wilson waived any constitutional challenge |
Key Cases Cited
- Rutherford v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 546 (3d Cir.) (scope of district court review; substantial evidence standard)
- Burnett v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 220 F.3d 112 (3d Cir.) (ALJ must explain rejection of evidence and resolve conflicts in medical record)
- Cotter v. Harris, 642 F.2d 700 (3d Cir.) (requiring ALJ to indicate which evidence was rejected and why)
- SSR 96-7p discussed via Schaudeck v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 181 F.3d 429 (3d Cir.) (ALJ credibility analysis must be supported by substantial evidence)
- Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99 (U.S.) (decision not to reopen prior benefits determinations generally unreviewable)
- Chandler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 667 F.3d 356 (3d Cir.) (ALJ not bound by physicians’ opinions but must provide reasons when crediting/discounting them)