Sieeda Brown v. Commissioner of Social Security

Summary

This Report and Recommendation addresses Sieeda Brown’s action seeking judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The magistrate judge evaluates challenges concerning the use of assistive devices, adoption of a prior residual functional capacity assessment, and the evaluation of a treating rheumatologist’s opinion. The magistrate judge recommends that the district court affirm the Commissioner’s decision.

Holdings

1. The ALJ did not apply an impermissible binding or mandatory-starting-point standard because he expressly found new and material evidence or changed circumstances, gave the current claim a fresh look, considered the prior decision, and adopted a different RFC that included a cane limitation.
2. The ALJ's finding that Brown required a cane for ambulation, rather than a rollator or another device for standing and walking, was supported by substantial evidence and did not violate SSR 96-9p.
3. The ALJ did not err in finding Dr. Morales-Mena's opinion only partially persuasive because the checklist opinion lacked specific supporting examination findings or diagnostic evidence and was inconsistent with other record evidence and the state-agency opinions.
4. Even assuming the ALJ erred by specifying a cane rather than a rollator, the error would be harmless because the vocational expert identified sedentary jobs Brown could perform under a hypothetical requiring a walker.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the ALJ violated the Sixth Circuit's rule governing consideration of a prior ALJ decision by using the prior residual functional capacity as a starting point.
2. Whether substantial evidence supported the ALJ's finding that Brown needed a cane for ambulation rather than a rollator or walker, and did not need an assistive device while standing.
3. Whether the ALJ properly evaluated the treating rheumatologist's opinion under the supportability and consistency requirements.
4. Whether any error concerning the type of assistive device was harmless in light of vocational-expert testimony identifying sedentary jobs.

Disposition

other