Terry Rholetter v. Carolyn Colvin
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:14-cv-00005-RJC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999755286].. [15-1424]
Appeal: 15-1424
Doc: 26
Filed: 02/16/2016
Pg: 1 of 8
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1424
TERRY BOYD RHOLETTER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Bryson City.
Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (2:14-cv-00005-RJC)
Submitted:
January 28, 2016
Decided:
February 16, 2016
Before NIEMEYER, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reversed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Paul B. Eaglin, OLINSKY LAW GROUP, Syracuse, New York, for
Appellant. Jill Westmoreland Rose, United States Attorney, Mark
J.
Goldenberg,
Special
Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-1424
Doc: 26
Filed: 02/16/2016
Pg: 2 of 8
PER CURIAM:
Terry
Boyd
Rholetter
appeals
the
district
court’s
order
granting summary judgment to the Commissioner and upholding the
Commissioner’s denial of Rholetter’s application for disability
insurance benefits.
Upon review, we reverse and remand with
instructions.
I.
“When
disability
examining
[a
determination,
Social
a
Security
reviewing
court
Administration]
is
required
to
uphold the determination when an ALJ has applied correct legal
standards
and
the
ALJ’s
substantial evidence.”
factual
findings
are
supported
by
Bird v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 699
F.3d 337, 340 (4th Cir. 2012).
“Substantial evidence is such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate
to support a conclusion.”
Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650,
653 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted).
“It
consists of more than a mere scintilla of evidence but may be
less than a preponderance.”
Hancock v. Astrue, 667 F.3d 470,
472 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted).
reviewing
for
substantial
evidence,
we
do
not
undertake
“In
to
reweigh conflicting evidence, make credibility determinations,
or substitute our judgment for that of the ALJ.”
Johnson, 434
F.3d at 653 (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted).
2
Appeal: 15-1424
Doc: 26
Filed: 02/16/2016
Pg: 3 of 8
Rather, “[w]here conflicting evidence allows reasonable minds to
differ,” we defer to the Commissioner’s decision.
quotation
marks
omitted).
To
enable
Id. (internal
judicial
review
for
substantial evidence, “[t]he record should include a discussion
of which evidence the ALJ found credible and why, and specific
application of the pertinent legal requirements to the record
evidence.”
Radford
v.
Colvin,
734
F.3d
288,
295
(4th
Cir.
2013).
A “disability” entitling a claimant to benefits under the
Social Security Act, as relevant here, is “[the] inability to
engage
in
any
substantial
gainful
activity
by
reason
of
any
medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can
be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be
expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12
months.”
42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A) (2012).
The claimant “bears
the burden of proving that he is disabled within the meaning of
the Social Security Act.”
1082 (4th Cir. 1993).
English v. Shalala, 10 F.3d 1080,
A five-step sequential process is used to
evaluate a disability claim.
(2015).
engaged
First,
in
the
ALJ
considers
substantial
§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i).
See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)
whether
gainful
the
claimant
activity.
is
Id.
If he is not, the ALJ determines whether
the claimant has “a severe medically determinable physical or
3
Appeal: 15-1424
Doc: 26
Filed: 02/16/2016
Pg: 4 of 8
mental impairment . . . or combination of impairments that is
severe.”
Id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii).
If he does, the ALJ decides
whether that impairment or combination of impairments meets or
equals one of the listings at 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P,
App. 1.
Id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii).
If it does not, the ALJ
assesses the claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to
determine whether the claimant retains the ability to perform
past relevant work.
the
burden
shifts
establish
that,
Id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv).
at
the
given
fifth
the
step
to
claimant’s
If he does not,
the
age,
Commissioner
education,
to
work
experience, and RFC, the claimant can perform alternative work
that exists in significant numbers in the national economy.
Id.
§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v); Mascio v. Colvin, 780 F.3d 632, 635 (4th
Cir. 2015).
“The Commissioner typically offers this evidence
through the testimony of a vocational expert responding to a
hypothetical
that
incorporates
the
claimant’s
limitations.”
Mascio, 780 F.3d at 635.
II.
The ALJ found that Rholetter had not engaged in substantial
gainful
activity
suffered
from
amputation,
deformity
since
severe
loss
alleged
impairments
coronary
with
his
artery
of
onset
including
disease,
vertebral
4
date
height,
and
below
lumbar
that
right
he
knee
compression
diverticulitis,
and
Appeal: 15-1424
Doc: 26
obesity.
Filed: 02/16/2016
The
ALJ
found
Pg: 5 of 8
that
Rholetter
did
not
have
an
impairment that met or equaled one of the listed impairments
found at 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1.
Finding that
Rholetter could no longer perform his past relevant work, the
ALJ relied on the testimony of a vocational expert to conclude
that Rholetter retained the RFC to perform jobs that exist in
the national economy and was, therefore, not disabled.
III.
Rholetter argues on appeal that the ALJ failed to reconcile
inconsistencies
Dictionary
of
between
the
Occupational
expert’s
Titles
testimony
(“DOT”).
and
the
Specifically,
Rholetter argues that the expert testified that he could perform
three jobs, all of which carry a Language Development Level of
two, despite an RFC limiting him to jobs that can be performed
by someone reading and/or writing at a first- or second-grade
level.
Reading
between
the
first-
and
second-grade
level
generally corresponds to reading at a Language Development Level
of
one.
See
Hernandez
v.
Colvin,
No.
13
CV
1955,
2014
WL
4784076, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 25, 2014) (expert testified that
Level
1
language
requirement
translates
to
reading
between
first- and third-grade levels); Lowe v. Astrue, No. 09 CV 4150,
2010
WL
4684036,
at
*4
(N.D.
5
Ill.
Nov.
12,
2010)
(expert
Appeal: 15-1424
Doc: 26
Filed: 02/16/2016
Pg: 6 of 8
testified that DOT language classifications of Levels 1 and 2
conflicted with claimant’s first-grade reading level).
Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 00–4p provides that the ALJ
“has
an
affirmative
responsibility
to
ask
[the
vocational
expert] about any possible conflict between [his] evidence and
. . . the DOT.”
2000).
SSR 00-4p, 2000 WL 1898704, at *4 (Dec. 4,
Thus, the ALJ must ask the expert if his testimony
conflicts with the DOT and, if the evidence appears to conflict,
the ALJ must “obtain a reasonable explanation for the apparent
conflict.”
Id.
relying
the
on
The
ALJ
expert’s
must
resolve
testimony
the
and
resolution of the conflict in his decision.
conflict
must
before
explain
the
Id.
In the recent decision of Pearson v. Colvin, __ F.3d __,
2015 WL 9204335 (4th Cir. Dec. 17, 2015), decided after the
district court’s judgment in this case, we held that the “ALJ
independently
must
identify
testimony and the [DOT].”
conflicts
between
Id. at *4.
the
expert’s
SSR 00-4p “requires
nothing of the claimant,” so Rholetter’s failure to raise the
conflict at the hearing does not preclude a finding that an
apparent conflict exists.
Id. at *6.
In addition, we held in Pearson that an expert’s testimony
that
apparently
conflicts
with
the
DOT
can
only
provide
substantial evidence if the ALJ received an explanation from the
6
Appeal: 15-1424
Doc: 26
explaining
expert
Filed: 02/16/2016
the
explanation
was
Pg: 7 of 8
conflict
reasonable
and
and
determined
that
it
both
provided
that
basis
a
the
for
relying on the expert’s testimony rather than the DOT.
WL 9204335 at *5.
See 2015
Noting that a social security hearing is not
adversarial, we decided that an ALJ has not fully developed the
record if the record contains an unresolved conflict between the
expert’s testimony and the DOT.
because
conflict,
there
there
was
no
was
no
See id.
explanation
reasonable
We determined that,
regarding
basis
for
the
apparent
relying
on
the
expert’s testimony, and, thus, the testimony could not provide
substantial evidence for a denial of benefits.
See id.
We conclude here that, on the basis of Pearson, the ALJ
erred, first, by not asking the expert about conflicts between
his
testimony
and
the
DOT
and,
second,
by
relying
on
the
expert’s testimony despite the expert’s failure to explain an
apparent
reading
conflict
at
a
between
first-
or
an
RFC
that
second-grade
limits
level
Rholetter
and
the
to
DOT’s
classification of the jobs identified by the expert as requiring
a Language Development Level of two.
Thus, under Pearson, the
expert’s
not
testimony
in
this
case
did
provide
substantial
evidence that there was work that Rholetter could do given his
RFC.
Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s conclusion
that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s finding that work
7
Appeal: 15-1424
Doc: 26
Filed: 02/16/2016
Pg: 8 of 8
that Rholetter could perform existed in significant numbers in
the national economy, and we direct the district court to remand
the case to the Commissioner with instructions to consider the
impact of Pearson.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions
are
adequately
presented
in
the
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
REVERSED AND REMANDED
8
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?