From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. Halter

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Oct 29, 2001
307 F.3d 377 (6th Cir. 2001)

Summary

holding that the ALJ did not need to include talismanic language in his hypothetical concerning plaintiff's difficulties in concentration, persistence and pace where the claimant's concentration difficulties were negligible and the ALJ limited the claimant to "routine and low stress" jobs that did not involve "high quotas"

Summary of this case from Campbell v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Opinion

No. 00-3913.

Submitted: September 13, 2001.

Decided and Filed: October 29, 2001.

This decision was originally issued as an "unpublished decision" filed on October 29, 2001. On September 18, 2002, the court designated the opinion as one recommended for full-text publication.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Peter C. Economus, J.

Michael A. Malyuk, Malyuk, Tucker Gingrich, Akron, Ohio, for Appellant.

Rick Young, Office of the General Counsel, Social Security Administration, Chicago, Illinois, for Appellee.

Before: SILER and CLAY, Circuit Judges; GRAHAM, District Judge.

The Honorable James L. Graham, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.



OPINION


Plaintiff Daniel L. Smith appeals the district court's dismissal of his appeal of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. He challenges the district court's finding that the Commissioner's decision to deny benefits was supported by substantial evidence. We AFFIRM.

I. BACKGROUND

Smith applied to the Social Security Administration ("SSA") for supplemental security income and disability benefits on October 14, 1993. He claims disability based on neck and shoulder pain, neuropathy in his legs, depression, and migraines. The SSA Appeals Council adopted as the Commissioner's final decision a memorandum opinion in which an administrative law judge ("ALJ") concluded that Smith was not disabled and therefore not entitled to benefits because he could still perform jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy despite his impairments. The ALJ based his finding on testimony from treating and examining physicians and a vocational expert. The ALJ attached a multiple-choice Psychiatric Review Technique ("PRT") questionnaire to the memorandum opinion which assessed the degree of functional limitation caused by Smith's mental impairment. As part of this assessment, the ALJ marked that Smith "Often" suffered "Deficiencies of Concentration, Persistence or Pace Resulting in Failure to Complete Tasks in a Timely Manner," a rating in the middle of a five-part scale that ran from "Never" to "Constant." The district court affirmed the Commissioner's final decision.

II. DISCUSSION

Our review of the Commissioner's decision is limited to determining whether the Commissioner's findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. See Garner v. Heckler, 745 F.2d 383, 387 (6th Cir. 1984); see also 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (stating that the Commissioner's findings as to any fact are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence). Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. See Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971).

A vocational expert's testimony concerning the availability of suitable work may constitute substantial evidence where the testimony is elicited in response to a hypothetical question that accurately sets forth the plaintiff's physical and mental impairments. See Varley v. Sec'y of HHS, 820 F.2d 777, 779 (6th Cir. 1987). Here, the ALJ described Smith's work experience and physical restrictions to the vocational expert, and characterized his mental impairment as limiting him to jobs that are routine and low stress, and do not involve intense interpersonal confrontations, high quotas, unprotected heights, or operation of dangerous machinery. The ALJ then asked the expert whether Smith could perform jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy despite his impairments. The expert identified four such jobs: order clerk, assignment clerk, dispatcher, and telephone answering service operator.

Smith argues that the vocational expert's assessment cannot provide substantial evidence for the ALJ's decision because the ALJ did not accurately characterize Smith's mental impairment in his hypothetical to the expert. Specifically, Smith argues that the ALJ should have added the instruction that the claimant "often" suffers deficiencies in concentration, persistence, or pace resulting in failure to complete tasks in a timely manner, as the ALJ indicated in the PRT. Under cross examination by Smith's attorney, the vocational expert admitted that such an additional stipulation would affect the claimant's work performance at the four identified jobs and might render it impossible for him to perform one or more of them.

We disagree. The ALJ's "finding" Smith relies on here — that Smith "often" has problems concentrating that preclude him from completing tasks on time — was a single box the ALJ checked in a 1-5 rating scale on a standard psychiatric assessment form. But the ALJ went beyond this simple frequency assessment to develop a complete and accurate assessment of Smith's mental impairment, as Varley requires. In particular, the ALJ relied on the testimony of four physicians who characterized Smith's concentration problems as minimal or negligible. The ALJ then translated Smith's condition into the only concrete restrictions available to him — examining psychiatrist Schweid's recommended restrictions against quotas, complexity, stress, etc. — and duly incorporated them into his hypothetical to the vocational expert.

It is true that a fifth physician, Dr. Beckner, concluded that Smith suffered an "inability to concentrate" that made it "difficult to impossible" for Smith to work. However, the ALJ rejected this assessment based on the reports of the other physicians and because it was unsupported by objective medical facts. This represents a credibility determination which this court may not disturb absent compelling reason. See Varley, 820 F.2d at 780 (ALJ's credibility determination "should not be discarded lightly"); Garner, 745 F.2d at 387 ("This Court may not try the case de novo, . . . nor decide questions of credibility."). No such reason exists here. Accordingly, this court finds that the ALJ accurately characterized Smith's impairments in his hypothetical to the vocational expert. Because there are no other apparent defects in that expert's testimony, we conclude that it provides substantial evidence for the ALJ's finding that Smith was capable of performing jobs found in significant numbers in the national economy and thus was not disabled nor entitled to benefits.

Beckner later rated Smith as having "fair" ability to maintain attention/concentration and function independently.

The authorities Smith relies on do not compel a different result. See Herriman v. Apfel, No. 99-CV-73489-DT, 2000 WL 246598, at *1 (E.D.Mich. Feb. 11, 2000) (unpublished); Brooks v. Comm'r, No. CIV. 98-6329-JO, 1999 WL 552663, at *1, *5 (D.Ore. July 26, 1999) (unpublished); McGuire v. Apfel, No. CIV. 98-1302-ST, 1999 WL 426035, at *1, *15-*16 (D.Ore. May 11, 1999) (unpublished). In all of these cases, the district court remanded the Commissioner's decision because the ALJ did not include in a hypothetical to a vocational expert a previous finding that the claimant "often" suffered from problems with concentration. But the ALJs in Herriman and Brooks appear to have made no attempt to incorporate concentration difficulties in their instructions to the vocational expert. These cases are therefore inapposite. McGuire held that an instruction that the plaintiff could perform only simple tasks did not adequately address the ALJ's prior finding that concentration problems might preclude timely completion of work. See McGuire, 1999 WL 426035, at *15-16. Here, the ALJ's restriction against jobs with quotas adequately addresses that timeliness issue.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Smith v. Halter

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Oct 29, 2001
307 F.3d 377 (6th Cir. 2001)

holding that the ALJ did not need to include talismanic language in his hypothetical concerning plaintiff's difficulties in concentration, persistence and pace where the claimant's concentration difficulties were negligible and the ALJ limited the claimant to "routine and low stress" jobs that did not involve "high quotas"

Summary of this case from Campbell v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

holding that where the ALJ's hypothetical incorporated concrete restrictions identified by the examining psychiatrist regarding quotas, complexity, and stress, the ALJ did not err in failing to include deficiencies in concentration, persistence, or pace

Summary of this case from Alvarado v. Berryhill

finding that the ALJ did not err by failing to include deficiencies in concentration, persistence or pace where the hypothetical incorporated concrete restrictions identified by examining psychiatrist regarding quotas, complexity and stress

Summary of this case from Otey v. Berryhill

finding that the ALJ properly rejected the physician's report which was unsupported by objective medical evidence

Summary of this case from Joyner v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

finding that the ALJ did not err by failing to include deficiencies in concentration, persistence or pace where the hypothetical incorporated concrete restrictions identified by examining psychiatrist regarding quotas, complexity and stress

Summary of this case from Foster-Mcvey v. Colvin

finding that the ALJ did not err by failing to include deficiencies in concentration, persistence, or pace where the hypothetical incorporated concrete restrictions identified by examining psychiatrist regarding quotas, complexity, and stress

Summary of this case from Kasey v. Colvin

finding that the ALJ did not err by failing to include deficiencies in concentration, persistence, or pace where the hypothetical incorporated concrete restrictions identified by examining psychiatrist regarding quotas, complexity, and stress

Summary of this case from St. Clair v. Colvin

finding RFC that included restrictions on quotas, complexity, and stress adequately accounted for ALJ's finding that claimant often had difficulty concentrating

Summary of this case from Howell v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

finding that the ALJ's limitation of plaintiff to work that is "routine and low stress" as recommended by one medical source of record adequately accounted for the fact that plaintiff often suffered from deficiencies in concentration, persistence, or pace

Summary of this case from Susalla v. Astrue

finding that the ALJ's limitation of plaintiff to work that is "routine and low stress" as recommended by one medical source of record adequately accounted for the fact that plaintiff often suffered from deficiencies in concentration, persistence, or pace

Summary of this case from Rorick v. Astrue

finding that the ALJ's limitation of plaintiff to work that is "routine and low stress" as recommended by one medical source of record adequately accounted for the fact that plaintiff often suffered from deficiencies in concentration, persistence, or pace

Summary of this case from Lee v. Astrue

finding that the ALJ's limitation of plaintiff to work that is "routine and low stress" as recommended by one medical source of record adequately accounted for the fact that plaintiff often suffered from deficiencies in concentration, persistence, or pace

Summary of this case from Vanbuskirk v. Astrue

finding that the ALJ's limitation of plaintiff to work that is "routine and low stress" as recommended by one medical source of record adequately accounted for the fact that plaintiff "often" suffers from deficiencies in "concentration, persistence, or pace"

Summary of this case from Anderson v. Astrue

finding that the ALJ's limitation of claimant to work that is "routine and low stress" as recommended by one medical source of record adequately accounted for the fact that claimant often suffered from deficiencies in concentration, persistence, or pace

Summary of this case from Kimmel v. Astrue

finding hypothetical limiting plaintiff to jobs that are "routine and low stress" adequately accounted for plaintiff's "`often' deficiencies in concentration, persistence, or pace"

Summary of this case from Camarillo-Ngo v. Astrue

finding hypothetical limiting plaintiff to jobs that are "routine and low stress" adequately accounted for plaintiff's "`often' deficiencies in concentration, persistence, or pace"

Summary of this case from Jordan v. Astrue

finding that the ALJ did not need to include a finding on a PRTF in a hypothetical question

Summary of this case from Camarillo-Ngo v. Astrue

finding that the ALJ's limitation of plaintiff to work that is "routine and low stress" as recommended by one medical source of record adequately accounted for the fact that plaintiff "often" suffers from deficiencies in "concentration, persistence, or pace"

Summary of this case from MUDD v. ASTRUE

finding that the ALJ's limitation of plaintiff to work that is "routine and low stress" as recommended by one medical source of record adequately accounted for the fact that plaintiff "often" suffers from deficiencies in "concentration, persistence, or pace"

Summary of this case from Steininger v. Astrue

finding that an ALJ's hypothetical question that did mention "quotas" was adequate

Summary of this case from Roundtree v. Commissioner of Social Security

determining that a hypothetical question limiting the claimant to jobs that are "routine and low stress, and do not involve intense interpersonal confrontations, high quotas, unprotected heights, or operation of dangerous machinery" appropriately addressed the limitations of the claimant who "often" suffered problems with concentration, persistence or pace resulting in the failure to complete tasks in a timely manner"

Summary of this case from Bush v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

rejecting claim that ALJ should deferred to physician on issue affect credibility

Summary of this case from Wright v. Colvin

rejecting argument that an ALJ—who had found that the claimant often had problems concentrating on a standard psychiatric assessment form—was logically compelled to include that finding in a hypothetical question

Summary of this case from Moore v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

restricting hypothetical to jobs without quotas, rather than to simple tasks, adequately addresses impairment in concentration

Summary of this case from Stewart v. Astrue

In Smith v. Halter, 307 F.3d 377, 379 (6th Cir. 2001), the Sixth Circuit stated that courts must give deference to the ALJ as the finder of fact, and that the court "may not disturb" an ALJ's credibility determination "absent [a] compelling reason."

Summary of this case from Dillon v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
Case details for

Smith v. Halter

Case Details

Full title:Daniel L. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William A. HALTER, Commissioner…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

Date published: Oct 29, 2001

Citations

307 F.3d 377 (6th Cir. 2001)

Citing Cases

Bohn-Morton v. Commissioner of Social Security

Record at 385.) The Magistrate Judge reasons that this limitation did not properly "incorporate both…

Thomas v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Although plaintiff contends that the ALJ's finding that he could perform work at all exertional levels…