Wray v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 1:17-cv-00586

Background

Plaintiff Trina Wray applied for DIB, POD, and SSI alleging disability beginning September 11, 2012 based on chronic pancreatitis and mental impairments; ALJ denied benefits and Appeals Council declined review.
Medical record shows recurrent pancreatitis treated with multiple bilateral celiac plexus nerve blocks providing periodic (2–3 months) substantial relief; examinations frequently showed normal strength and only mild abdominal tenderness.
Mental-health evidence includes two consultative exams by Dr. David House (2011 and May 2013) showing intact memory and mostly adequate concentration but episodic emotional lability, GAFs of 51 and 41, and a Connections diagnostic assessment noting moderate major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder.
State-agency reviewers adopted prior RFC limitations; examining pain specialist (Dr. Chang/Leizman) opined capability for light work but mentioned possible intermittent absences due to future treatment (vague).
At hearing a VE testified that a person limited to light work with sit/stand option, simple routine tasks, few workplace changes, and no fast-paced production could perform other work; VE said three or more absences per month would preclude all work.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ALJ properly weighed consultative psychologist Dr. House’s opinions	Wray argues ALJ cherry-picked and misstated Dr. House, failed to give appropriate weight to his exam findings (esp. episodic concentration and poor stress tolerance)	Commissioner: ALJ reasonably assigned some weight, relied on longitudinal record and state reviewers, and accounted for stress/concentration limits in RFC	ALJ did not err; decision to give some weight and to incorporate limits into RFC upheld
Whether ALJ failed to account for episodic limitations (intermittent absences, extra breaks) in RFC	Wray contends record shows intermittent functional limitations (concentration lapses, frequent bathroom use, treatment absences) that preclude sustained work	Commissioner: ALJ considered evidence, gave reasons rejecting vague/speculative absence limitation and found medical stability and effective treatment support RFC	ALJ’s RFC supported by substantial evidence; failure to include unspecified absenteeism or extra breaks not reversible error
Whether ALJ erred by rejecting examining physician’s comment about intermittent absences	Wray argues treating/examining notes support need for intermittent work absences	Commissioner: the statement was vague/speculative as to frequency/type of treatment and inconsistent with treating notes showing stability	ALJ permissibly discounted the vague/unspecified absence remark
Whether the RFC and VE findings supported denial of benefits	Wray argues VE testimony shows inability to sustain employment if absences occur as she alleges	Commissioner: RFC fit jobs identified by VE; plaintiff failed to prove absences would meet VE’s threshold	Court affirmed ALJ — RFC supported and VE testimony established jobs existed that claimant could perform

Key Cases Cited

Abbott v. Sullivan, 905 F.2d 918 (6th Cir. 1990) (summarizes five-step sequential evaluation process)
Kirk v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 667 F.2d 524 (6th Cir. 1981) (SSI eligibility requires meeting income/resource limits)
White v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 572 F.3d 272 (6th Cir. 2009) (court reviews ALJ for substantial evidence and correct legal standards)
Rogers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234 (6th Cir. 2007) (definition of substantial evidence standard)
Cutlip v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 25 F.3d 284 (6th Cir. 1994) (substantial evidence: more than a scintilla)
Brainard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 889 F.2d 679 (6th Cir. 1989) (appellate court will not reweigh evidence or reassess credibility)
Buxton v. Halter, 246 F.3d 762 (6th Cir. 2001) (existence of substantial evidence supporting a different conclusion does not require reversal)
Mullen v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 535 (6th Cir. 1986) (the Commissioner has a "zone of choice" in decisions)
Her v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 203 F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 1999) (claimant bears burden to demonstrate RFC limitations)
Fleischer v. Astrue, 774 F. Supp. 2d 875 (N.D. Ohio 2011) (ALJ must build an accurate and logical bridge from evidence to conclusions)