Opinion ID: 3173476
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Rulings of the ALJ and the District Court

Text: a. ALJ Findings The ALJ’s ruling evaluated Brantley’s claims for benefits according to the five-step analysis prescribed by the applicable Social Security regulations. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a). At step one, the ALJ found that Brantley had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since his alleged onset date of February 27, 2010. At step two, the ALJ found that Brantley’s seizure disorder, obesity, and organic mental disorder constituted severe impairments. The ALJ’s analysis at the second step contained a substantial discussion of Brantley’s 2003 medical emergency and its aftermath, as well as summaries of the consultative examinations performed by Drs. Siegel and Amos. At step three, the ALJ found that Brantley did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of any of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart Plaintiff, Appendix 1. This part of the ALJ’s -7- Case No. 15-5309 Brantley v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. analysis focused on the “paragraph B” criteria, which includes restrictions in daily activities, difficulties in maintaining social functioning, difficulties in maintaining concentration, persistence or pace, and episodes of decompensation. The ALJ found that Brantley experienced mild restrictions in daily activities, mild difficulties in social functioning, moderate difficulties in maintaining concentration, persistence, or pace, and no extended episodes of decompensation. At step four, the ALJ found that Brantley Has the residual functional capacity to lift 50 pounds occasionally and 25 pounds frequently and stand, walk, and sit 6 hours in an eight hour workday while avoiding work around hazards, moving machinery, and work at heights. Mentally, despite the limitations imposed by his cognitive disorder, [Brantley] remains capable of understanding, remembering, and carrying out simple 1-2 step job instructions, and adapting to gradual changes in the work place. When assessing the mental component of Brantley’s RFC, the ALJ stated that she relied on the opinions of the state agency psychological consultants because they are well supported by the longitudinal record including Dr. Amos’ psychological report. Robert de la Torre[,] Ph.D., and Edward Sachs, Ph.D., state agency psychological consultants[,] opined that [Brantley] retained the ability to perform simple 1-2 step tasks, adapt to gradual or infrequent workplace changes, and interact appropriately with supervisors, workers, and the general public . . . . [C]onsidered and gave substantial weight to Dr. Amos’ opinion that the claimant would only have difficulty with problem solving skills and carrying out step-bystep activities because it is supported by the longitudinal record. However, the Administrative Law Judge finds that Dr. Amos’ Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) score of 50 is not consistent with [Brantley’s] adaptive functioning and as such is given very little weight. Given Brantley’s assessed RFC, the ALJ found that Brantley was unable to perform any of his past relevant work. At step five, the ALJ found that Brantley was capable of working in certain occupations with a significant number of jobs in the national economy. The ALJ specifically highlighted the occupations of agricultural products sorter and housekeeper that were identified by the -8- Case No. 15-5309 Brantley v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. vocational expert during his testimony at the hearing. Based on that finding, the ALJ concluded that Brantley was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act during the relevant time frame. b. District Court Ruling Brantley argued before the district court that the ALJ’s findings lacked the support of substantial evidence in the record. Specifically, Brantley argued that the ALJ failed to provide Drs. Siegel and Amos with medical records concerning his 2003 brain trauma. Brantley also argued that the hypothetical question posed to the vocational expert by the ALJ did not accurately reflect the mental limitations identified by Dr. Amos. The district court acknowledged that the applicable regulations “provide that if the agency arranges for a consultative examination, it will ‘give the examiner any necessary background information about [the claimant’s] condition.’” However, the district court ruled that the regulation “does not mandate that the agency give the examiner access to the claimant’s medical records.” The district court also faulted Brantley for not explaining how the opinions of Drs. Amos and Siegel “would have been different and/or favorable to him if they had reviewed his earlier medical records” and suggested that the ALJ’s review of Brantley’s medical records made their availability to the consulting examiners superfluous. With respect to the testimony of the vocational expert, the district court ruled that “the vocational expert’s testimony was in response to hypothetical questions that set forth all the reasonable limitations [Brantley] had on his ability to work,” meaning that the “ALJ properly relied on that testimony.” -9- Case No. 15-5309 Brantley v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.