566 F. App'x 418
6th Cir.2014Background
- Winslow applied for disability-insurance benefits and supplemental-security-income benefits claiming disability beginning April 30, 2009.
- SSA denied and Winslow received a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ).
- ALJ denied benefits; Appeals Council declined review; district court affirmed the denial.
- Appeal raised five issues challenging the ALJ’s decision and standards of review.
- Court reviews the ALJ’s decision for correct legal standards and substantial-evidence support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conflict between VE and DOT under SSR 00-4p | Winslow argues a VE-DOT conflict. | Winslow contends a conflict exists; ALJ failed to resolve. | No reversible error; no actual/apparent conflict required reconciliation. |
| RFC function-by-function assessment | ALJ failed to perform a function-by-function RFC assessment. | ALJ complied with applicable regulations and assessed limitations. | ALJ properly assessed relevant work-related limitations. |
| Representive jobs inconsistent with restrictions; weighting of opinions | VE jobs inconsistent with restrictions; Parker/Muehleman opinions undervalued. | Two identified jobs exist and were consistent with restrictions; other opinions appropriately weighed. | Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s findings and reliance on VE jobs. |
| Credibility of Winslow's testimony | Winslow’s testimony mirrors significant impairments. | Medical evidence and opinions support limited credibility. | Credibility finding supported by substantial evidence. |
| Sentence-six remand for additional medical evidence | District court should remand for treatment records from 2011. | Evidence not material; remand not warranted. | No material evidence; remand not required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lindsley v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 560 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 2009) (VE-DOT conflict not required to be resolved absent an actual conflict)
- Monateri v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 436 F. App’x 434 (6th Cir. 2011) (DOT terminology differences do not establish per se conflicts)
- Blakley v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399 (6th Cir. 2009) (standard of review and substantial-evidence framework)
- Rudd v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 531 F. App’x 719 (6th Cir. 2013) (RFC assessment and credibility considerations)
- Casey v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 987 F.2d 1230 (6th Cir. 1993) (hypothetical questions and credibility)
- Justice v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 515 F. App’x 583 (6th Cir. 2013) (credibility and credible evidence standard)
- Gayheart v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365 (6th Cir. 2013) (medical opinions and evaluation of evidence)
- Delgado v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 30 F. App’x 542 (6th Cir. 2002) (weight of medical opinions and regulatory standards)
- Moore v. Astrue, 623 F.3d 599 (8th Cir. 2010) (simple tasks and simple work still compatible with some jobs)
- Hackett v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1168 (10th Cir. 2005) (simple and routine work exceptions)