Padilla v. Social Security Administration Commissioner
Filing
12
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Honorable Erin L. Setser on December 11, 2015. (rg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
JAMES PADILLA
PLAINTIFF
v.
CIVIL NO. 14-5259
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner
Social Security Administration
DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, James Padilla, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking
judicial review of a decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
(Commissioner) denying his claims for period of disability and disability insurance benefits
(DIB) under the provisions of Title II of the Social Security Act (Act). In this judicial review,
the Court must determine whether there is substantial evidence in the administrative record to
support the Commissioner's decision. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
I.
Procedural Background:
Plaintiff protectively filed his current application for DIB on July 25, 2011, alleging an
inability to work since September 1, 2008, 1 due to heart conditions, depression, and anxiety.
(Tr. 121, 125, 176). An administrative hearing was held on September 4, 2012, at which
Plaintiff appeared with counsel and testified. (Tr. 29-62).
1
At the administrative hearing, Plaintiff, through his counsel, amended his alleged onset date to July 31, 2011. (Tr. 32-33).
1
By written decision dated March 22, 2013, the ALJ found that during the relevant time
period, Plaintiff had an impairment or combination of impairments that were severe. (Tr. 12).
Specifically, the ALJ found Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: postural orthostatic
tachycardia syndrome, chronic chest pain, a seizure disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder (ADHD), major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder/panic disorder, a
personality disorder, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. However, after reviewing all of the
evidence presented, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff’s impairments did not meet or equal the
level of severity of any impairment listed in the Listing of Impairments found in Appendix I,
Subpart P, Regulation No. 4. (Tr. 13). The ALJ found Plaintiff retained the residual functional
capacity (RFC) to:
perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) except he must avoid
even moderate exposure to hazards including no driving as part of work. He is
able to perform work where interpersonal contact is incidental to the work
performed, the complexity of tasks is learned and performed by rote, with few
variables and use of little judgment, and the supervision required is simple,
direct, and concrete.
(Tr. 14). With the help of a vocational expert, the ALJ determined Plaintiff could perform
work as a food preparation worker, a dishwasher, a production worker, and a hand packager.
(Tr. 21-22).
Plaintiff then requested a review of the hearing decision by the Appeals Council, which
denied that request on June 13, 2014. (Tr. 1-5). Subsequently, Plaintiff filed this action. (Doc.
1). This case is before the undersigned pursuant to the consent of the parties. (Doc. 6). Both
parties have filed appeal briefs, and the case is now ready for decision. (Docs. 10, 11).
The Court has reviewed the entire transcript. The complete set of facts and arguments
are presented in the parties’ briefs, and are repeated here only to the extent necessary.
2
II.
Applicable Law:
This Court's role is to determine whether the Commissioner's findings are supported by
substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Ramirez v. Barnhart, 292 F.3d 576, 583 (8th
Cir. 2002). Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance but it is enough that a reasonable
mind would find it adequate to support the Commissioner's decision. The ALJ's decision must
be affirmed if the record contains substantial evidence to support it. Edwards v. Barnhart, 314
F.3d 964, 966 (8th Cir. 2003). As long as there is substantial evidence in the record that
supports the Commissioner's decision, the Court may not reverse it simply because substantial
evidence exists in the record that would have supported a contrary outcome, or because the
Court would have decided the case differently. Haley v. Massanari, 258 F.3d 742, 747 (8th
Cir. 2001). In other words, if after reviewing the record it is possible to draw two inconsistent
positions from the evidence and one of those positions represents the findings of the ALJ, the
decision of the ALJ must be affirmed. Young v. Apfel, 221 F.3d 1065, 1068 (8th Cir. 2000).
It is well-established that a claimant for Social Security disability benefits has the
burden of proving his disability by establishing a physical or mental disability that has lasted
at least one year and that prevents him from engaging in any substantial gainful activity.
Pearsall v. Massanari, 274 F.3d 1211, 1217 (8th Cir. 2001); see also 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A),
1382c(a)(3)(A). The Act defines “physical or mental impairment” as “an impairment that
results from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities which are demonstrable
by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.”
42 U.S.C. §§
423(d)(3), 1382(3)(C). A Plaintiff must show that his disability, not simply his impairment,
has lasted for at least twelve consecutive months.
3
The Commissioner’s regulations require her to apply a five-step sequential evaluation
process to each claim for disability benefits: (1) whether the claimant has engaged in
substantial gainful activity since filing his claim; (2) whether the claimant has a severe physical
and/or mental impairment or combination of impairments; (3) whether the impairment(s) meet
or equal an impairment in the listings; (4) whether the impairment(s) prevent the claimant from
doing past relevant work; and, (5) whether the claimant is able to perform other work in the
national economy given his age, education, and experience. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. Only
if the final stage is reached does the fact finder consider the Plaintiff’s age, education, and
work experience in light of his residual functional capacity. See McCoy v. Schweiker, 683
F.2d 1138, 1141-42 (8th Cir. 1982); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520.
III.
Discussion:
Plaintiff argues the following issues on appeal: 1) the ALJ erred in determining
Plaintiff’s RFC; and 2) the ALJ erred in assessing Plaintiff’s credibility.
A.
Subjective Complaints and Credibility Analysis:
The ALJ was required to consider all the evidence relating to Plaintiff’s subjective
complaints including evidence presented by third parties that relates to: (1) Plaintiff’s daily
activities; (2) the duration, frequency, and intensity of his pain; (3) precipitating and
aggravating factors; (4) dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of his medication; and (5)
functional restrictions. See Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir. 1984). While
an ALJ may not discount a claimant’s subjective complaints solely because the medical
evidence fails to support them, an ALJ may discount those complaints where inconsistencies
appear in the record as a whole. Id. As the Eighth Circuit has observed, “Our touchstone is
that [a claimant’s] credibility is primarily a matter for the ALJ to decide.” Edwards, 314 F.3d
at 966.
4
After reviewing the administrative record, it is clear that the ALJ properly considered
and evaluated Plaintiff’s subjective complaints, including the Polaski factors. A review of the
record reveals that during the relevant time period Plaintiff helped care for his small child;
helped with the household chores; prepared simple meals; took care of personal needs; reported
that he was able to perform all activities of daily living without assistance; purchased
household items online; indicated to examiners that he was taking college classes; and watched
television and played card games with his family. The Court finds substantial evidence to
support the ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff’s daily activities were not consistent with an
inability to perform substantial gainful activity.
With respect to Plaintiff’s alleged mental impairments, the record reveals that
Plaintiff’s depression and anxiety responded to treatment when taken as prescribed. The record
further reveals that Plaintiff did not always take his medication as prescribed, and there is a
question as to whether he attempted to receive medications from more than one provider. The
record also reveals that in November of 2012, Dr. Stephen P. Nichols, a consultative examiner,
conducted a mental evaluation of Plaintiff. Dr. Nichols then gave the following assessment:
The claimant is able to perform all activities of daily living without assistance,
although he is not allowed to drive an automobile. He has the ability to
communicate and interact in a socially adequate manner, as evidenced by his
behavior during the interview. He has the ability to communicate in an
intelligible manner. His social skills are generally intact, but his ability to
cooperate with supervisors and co-workers is reduced by his level of
depression. His ability to cope with, concentrate on, and sustain persistence in
completing tasks is limited by his personality disorder.
(Tr. 944). Dr. Nichols also completed a medical assessment wherein he opined Plaintiff had
mild to moderate limitations. (Tr. 945-947). The Court finds substantial evidence to support
the ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff did not have a disabling mental impairment.
5
With regard to the Third Party Function Report completed by Plaintiff’s wife, the ALJ
properly considered this evidence but found it unpersuasive. This determination was within
the ALJ's province. See Siemers v. Shalala, 47 F.3d 299, 302 (8th Cir. 1995); Ownbey v.
Shalala, 5 F.3d 342, 345 (8th Cir. 1993).
Therefore, although it is clear that Plaintiff suffers with some degree of limitation, he
has not established that he is unable to engage in any gainful activity. Accordingly, the Court
concludes that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusion that Plaintiff’s subjective
complaints were not totally credible.
B.
ALJ’s RFC Determination and Medical Opinions:
RFC is the most a person can do despite that person’s limitations. 20 C.F.R. §
404.1545(a)(1). It is assessed using all relevant evidence in the record. Id. This includes
medical records, observations of treating physicians and others, and the claimant’s own
descriptions of his limitations. Guilliams v. Barnhart, 393 F.3d 798, 801 (8th Cir. 2005);
Eichelberger v. Barnhart, 390 F.3d 584, 591 (8th Cir. 2004). Limitations resulting from
symptoms such as pain are also factored into the assessment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3). The
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has held that a “claimant’s residual
functional capacity is a medical question.” Lauer v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 700, 704 (8th Cir. 2001).
Therefore, an ALJ’s determination concerning a claimant’s RFC must be supported by medical
evidence that addresses the claimant’s ability to function in the workplace. Lewis v. Barnhart,
353 F.3d 642, 646 (8th Cir. 2003). “[T]he ALJ is [also] required to set forth specifically a
claimant’s limitations and to determine how those limitations affect his RFC.” Id.
In determining that Plaintiff maintained the RFC to perform light work with limitations,
the ALJ considered the medical assessments of the examining and non-examining agency
6
medical consultants; Plaintiff’s subjective complaints; and his medical records. The Court
notes that in determining Plaintiff’s RFC, the ALJ discussed the medical opinions of examining
and non-examining medical professionals, and set forth the reasons for the weight given to the
opinions. Renstrom v. Astrue, 680 F.3d 1057, 1065 (8th Cir. 2012) (“It is the ALJ’s function
to
resolve
conflicts
among
the
opinions
of
various
treating
and
examining
physicians”)(citations omitted); Prosch v. Apfel, 201 F.3d 1010 at 1012 (the ALJ may reject
the conclusions of any medical expert, whether hired by the claimant or the government, if
they are inconsistent with the record as a whole). While Plaintiff argues that Dr. Nichols’
opinion was not given proper weight, the record reveals that Dr. Nichols found Plaintiff had
mild to moderate limitations in functioning, which the ALJ addressed when determining
Plaintiff’s RFC. After reviewing the entire transcript, the Court finds substantial evidence
supporting the ALJ’s RFC determination for the time period in question.
C.
Hypothetical Question to the Vocational Expert:
Before addressing the testimony of the vocational expert, the Court notes that the
vocational expert’s testimony was not completely consistent with the Dictionary of
Occupational Titles (DOT). [W]hen expert testimony conflicts with the DOT, and the DOT
classifications are not rebutted, the DOT controls.” Porch v. Chater, 115 F.3d 567, 572 (8th
Cir.1997). In this case, the ALJ addressed the inconsistency between the vocational expert
testimony and the DOT and determined that the vocational expert made a reasonable
explanation with respect to the inconsistency. The Court finds substantial evidence to support
this determination.
After thoroughly reviewing the hearing transcript along with the entire evidence of
record, the Court finds that the hypothetical the ALJ posed to the vocational expert fully set
7
forth the impairments which the ALJ accepted as true and which were supported by the record
as a whole. Goff v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 785, 794 (8th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, the Court finds
that the vocational expert's testimony constitutes substantial evidence supporting the ALJ's
conclusion that Plaintiff's impairments did not preclude him from performing work as a food
preparation worker, a dishwasher, a production worker, and a hand packager. Pickney v.
Chater, 96 F.3d 294, 296 (8th Cir. 1996)(testimony from vocational expert based on properly
phrased hypothetical question constitutes substantial evidence).
IV.
Conclusion:
Accordingly, having carefully reviewed the record, the undersigned finds substantial
evidence supporting the ALJ's decision denying the Plaintiff benefits, and thus the decision
should be affirmed. The undersigned further finds that the Plaintiff’s Complaint should be
dismissed with prejudice.
DATED this 11th day of December, 2015.
/s/ Erin L. Setser
HON. ERIN L. SETSER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?