Anglemyer v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
30
OPINION AND ORDER AFFIRMING the ALJ's decision. Judgment is entered in favor of the Commissioner. ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 4/2/14. (smp)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
JAMIE S. ANGLEMYER,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,1
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CAUSE NO. 3:12-CV-486-CAN
OPINION AND ORDER
On September 5, 2012, Plaintiff Jaime S. Anglemyer, (“Anglemyer”) filed a Motion for
judicial review in this Court requesting reversal or remand of the decision of the Commissioner
denying Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and Supplemental Security
Income (“SSI”). On April 26, 2013, Anglemyer filed his opening brief and, on August 2, 2013,
Carolyn Colvin, the acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration,
(“Commissioner”) responded. Anglemyer filed a reply brief on August 29, 2013. This Court may
enter a ruling in this matter based on the parties’ consent, 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), and 42 U.S.C. §§
405(g) and 1383(c)(3).
I.
PROCEDURE
On August 24, 2009, Plaintiff, Jaime S. Anglemyer, filed applications for SSI and DIB,
alleging that he had become disabled on June 30, 2008, due to symptoms associated with a head
injury, a back injury, and hip problems. Anglemyer later amended his alleged disability onset
date to August 24, 2009. His applications were denied initially on December 21, 2009, and upon
1
Carolyn W. Colvin became the acting Commissioner of Social Security on February 14, 2013. Pursuant to Rule
25(d)1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Carolyn W. Colvin is substituted for Commissioner Michael J.
Astrue as Defendant in this suit.
reconsideration on March 1, 2010. On March 30, 2010, Anglemyer filed a written request for a
hearing, which occurred on April 18, 2011. Anglemyer appeared at the hearing with counsel and
testified before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”). A vocational expert (“VE”) also testified
at the hearing.
On July, 22, 2011, the ALJ issued an opinion denying Anglemyer’s request for benefits.
The ALJ found that Anglemyer had not engaged in substantial gainful employment at any time
since the onset date of his alleged disability. The ALJ then concluded that Anglemyer suffered
from the following severe impairments: degenerative disc disease, sleep apnea, personality
disorder, depression, and obesity. However, the ALJ also found that none of Anglemyer’s severe
impairments or combination of impairments met or medically equaled any of those included in
the Listing of Impairments at 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P., app. 1. The ALJ found that
Anglemyer’s statements concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of his
symptoms were not credible and determined that Anglemyer retained the residual functional
capacity (“RFC”) to perform a full range of unskilled, light work.2 Based on this finding, the
ALJ found that Anglemyer could not perform any of his past relevant work, but could perform
jobs that existed in significant numbers in the national economy. Therefore, the ALJ determined
that Anglemyer was not disabled and that his claim for benefits should be denied.
On August 14, 2012, the Appeals Council denied Anglemyer’s request for review of the
ALJ’s decision. This made the ALJ’s decision the final decision of the Commissioner. See
C.F.R. §§ 404.981, 416.1481.
II.
RELEVANT BACKGROUND
A.
2
Facts
Light work “involves lifting nor more than 20 pounds at a time with frequent lifting or carrying objects weighting
up to 10 pounds.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.967(b). Light work may require a good deal of walking or standing or involve
sitting most of the time with some pushing and pulling of arm and leg controls. Id.
Anglemyer was 44 years old at the time of the ALJs decision. Anglemyer is
approximately five feet, six inches tall and two hundred and forty pounds. Anglemyer completed
tenth grade, but did not obtain a GED. He is married and resides with his wife and a female
roommate for the purposes of paying the bills.
During the last fifteen years, Anglemyer worked full time as a temporary worker, arc
welder, or trailer assembler. Anglemyer received vocational training at a career center. In 2008,
Anglemyer was working as a temporary worker until he sustained a head injury after falling out
of a truck at work. Anglemyer’s resulting head injury caused concentration and memory
problems. Anglemyer had also worked as a welder and as a trailer assembler. Anglemyer
exhausted his unemployment benefits after he stopped working. Since his last job, Anglemyer
has looked for new employment and explored the possibility of returning to school to learn a
new trade, both to no avail.
B.
Medical Background
Anglemyer’s medical records date back to October 26, 1991, when he saw Dr. Paul
Yoder at Oaklawn Psychiatric Center (“Oaklawn”) for a psychological evaluation and treatment.
Anglemyer’s therapist, Robert Wert, ACSW, had referred him to Dr. Yoder, as had the court in
response to criminal charges that Anglemyer faced at that time. Dr. Yoder noted that Anglemyer
had “a long history of troubled behavior and emotional problems.” (Tr. 250). Anglemyer
underwent testing that yielded diagnoses of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”), cannabis
dependence, dysthymia3, major depression, personality disorder, and developmental arithmetic
3
Dysthymia is a chronic form of depression where a person’s moods are regularly low. However, these symptoms
are not as severe as they would be with major depression. See Dysthymia,
http:www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000918.htm (last visted November 12, 2013).
3
and reading disorders. Then in 1999, Anglemyer was again treated at Oaklawn for major
depression, cannabis dependence, and personality disorder. In August of 1999, Dr. Yoder noted
that Anglemyer had been upset that his disability application had been denied but that he needed
treatment compliance before he could qualify for disability. In 2002, Anglemyer applied for
Medicaid benefits and consequently underwent further evaluation by Linda Bertsche, a
psychiatric clinical nurse specialist, who diagnosed him with psychotic disorder NOS, a history
of alcohol and cannabis dependence in full remission, and personality disorder NOS. Bertsche,
however, listed a Rule PTSD diagnosis suggesting a lack of certainty at that time as to whether a
PTSD diagnosis was accurate.
Anglemyer’s record also shows treatment on July 15, 2009, at the emergency room for
headaches and back pain. Anglemyer told the emergency room doctor, Eugene Huang, M.D.,
that he believed that his headaches and back pain were the result of a fall from a truck at work
about a year and a half earlier. Anglemyer thought the fall may have been caused by a seizure.
Anglemyer stated that he experienced pain two times a week at first, but the pain increased in
frequency to daily pain. Dr. Huang’s exam of Anglemyer showed lower back
discomfort/numbness but no point tenderness or other conditions. Furthermore, a CT scan
performed revealed no acute abnormalities to Anglemyer’s head.
On July 17, 2009, Anglemyer began to see a primary care physician, Dr. Pranjalkumar
Patel. During this visit, Anglemyer did not report any difficulties with light sensitivity or
headaches, but did say he had “mild headache[s] off and on.” (Tr. 271–72). Anglemyer also
informed Dr. Patel that he may have had a seizure the day before his visit. Nonetheless, Dr. Patel
noted headaches, possible migraines, possible seizure activity, and rectal bleeding possibly from
4
hemorrhoids. Dr. Patel referred Anglemyer to a neurologist and gastroenterologist for further
evaluation and ordered an electroencephalogram (“EEG”). Anglemyer, however, refused to seek
further evaluation despite Dr. Patel’s warning about the possible outcomes.
On October 30, 2009, Dr. Randal Horton, a state agency psychological consultant,
completed Psychiatric Review Technique and Mental Residual Functional Capacity Assessment
forms regarding Anglemyer. Dr. Horton opined that Anglemyer was able to “drive, give rides, do
chores, prepare some meals, maintain hygiene, shop, handle money, engage in leisure interests,
socialize, and has within normal limits in regards to comprehension/attention.” (Tr. 292).
Furthermore, Horton noted that Anglemyer was primarily limited by physical issues and had the
ability to do 2-3 step command work within physical parameters.
On October 27, 2009, Anglemyer began to see a new primary care physician, Dr. Paul
Buller. As he had with other doctors, Anglemyer mentioned his headaches and back pain from
the fall. However, Anglemyer added that he was taking Motrin and Tylenol “like candy” and it
was not relieving his pain. Dr. Buller prescribed Tylenol 3 for Anglemyer’s low back pain.
Anglemyer returned to Dr. Buller on January 22, 2010, seeking a prescription refill.
On December 5, 2009, Anglemyer saw Joe Banks, D.O., for a physical consultative
examination related to his disability application. He complained of daily headaches and back
pain radiating into his left leg. Banks observed a diminished range of motion in the lumbar spine
secondary to pain. On December 19, 2009, consultative examiner Dr. R. Bond, completed a
Physical RFC Assessment form in which he concluded that Anglemyer could occasionally
lift/carry 50 pounds and frequently lift/carry 25 pounds, and sit, stand, or walk fo rsix hours in an
5
eight-hour day. Bond indicated no limitations from Anglemyer’s headaches or seizures, and
imposed no environmental limitations.
In 2010, Anglemyer visited the emergency room in March, July, and October
complaining of headaches, backpain, right knee pain, a sprained ankle, as well as his previously
documented conditions. The doctor’s notes from July show that Anglemyer reported several new
complaints causing the doctor to refer him to a new primary care physician after learning that
Anglemyer’s previous physician would no longer see him for payment issues. Anglemyer never
followed up with the new doctor. In October, Anglemyer reported difficulty breathing leading to
a diagnosis of COPD. After each visit, Anglemyer was sent home with medication.
On July 1, 2010, after having ongoing symptoms of depression with thoughts of suicide,
Anglemyer returned to Oaklawn where he saw Dr. Timothy McFadden. Dr. McFadden learned
that Anglemyer was taking care of two women, his girlfriend at the time who is now his wife and
another female roommate both of whom were on disability. In his notes, Dr. McFadden
commented that he believed Anglemyer was motivated by his wife’s and his roommate’s
disability at times. Dr. McFadden also noted that Anglemyer had normal speech and fair eye
contact as well as logical thought processes with judgment rated at his baseline. Dr. McFadden
diagnosed Anglemyer with major depressive disorder, recurrent, with psychotic features, PTSD,
and personality disorder NOS with antisocial, borderline, and dependent features. Dr. McFadden
attributed this to chronic distress, paranoid thoughts, and PTSD-type symptoms. Even though
Anglemyer’s wife corroborated his low mood, anxiety, and frequent nightmares, Dr. McFadden
still expressed “some concerns about the motivation for disability” and noted Anglemyer’s lack
of follow-up with his doctors. (Tr. 378).
6
To address sleep problems, Anglemyer visited the Northeastern Center on October 22,
2010, where he saw Bonnie Pearson, a clinical nurse specialist, who diagnosed primary
insomnia, borderline personality disorder, and histrionic personality disorder. At the visit,
Anglemyer reported that he had taken a friends’ medications to help him sleep but he did not like
the side effects. Pearson told Anglemyer that it is not normal for people to take other people’s
medication, especially strong sleeping medication. She also noted that she found it difficult to
believe what Anglemyer was trying to tell her because of his normal mental status and ability to
perform the tasks she asked of him. Furthermore, Pearson gave a guarded prognosis in that she
believed that Anglemyer was “trying to play the system” and “looking to get any kind of
benzodiazepines or illegal substances that he can get his hands on.” (Tr. 353).
On January 12, 2011, Anglemyer began physical therapy for his back pain. Anglemyer
had some pain and tenderness during the physical therapy but his muscle strength and sensation
were full and intact. The therapist noted that Anglemyer had some radicular symptoms, but no
objective neurologic findings on the exam. Anglemyer stated at the ALJ hearing that he attended
physical therapy for seven weeks; however, there is nothing in the record to support his claim.
On January 31, 2011, Anglemyer saw Dr. Jody Neer for a neurological consultation
regarding his seizure activity in particular. This examination showed normal neurological and
musculoskeletal functions. Dr. Neer noted after reviewing the EEG and diagnosing the seizure
disorder that the disorder would be “totally and presently disabling” and it would be unlikely that
Anglemyer could maintain meaningful employment. (Tr. 422). However, Dr. Neer opined that he
believed that the seizures were caused by a suspected condition of obstructive sleep apnea. Dr.
Neer recommended that Anglemyer undergo a sleep study and be sent for an MRI.
7
Following an unremarkable MRI performed on February 5, 2011, Anglemyer underwent
a sleep study on February 15, 2011, which confirmed the suspected sleep apnea diagnosis. The
doctor suggested that Anglemyer lose some weight and quit smoking to help to resolve his sleep
apnea. Anglemyer’s last medical visit on the record was a return to Dr. Buller to get his
disability paperwork completed.
C.
Claimant’s Daily Activity Testimony
At the ALJ hearing, Anglemyer testified with specificity about his typical daily activities.
Anglemyer stated he usually woke up at 8:00 a.m. and got himself ready with some difficulty.
Anglemyer further stated that he also takes his medications in the morning and then takes his dog
outside. Anglemyer said he usually stays inside watching television until about lunchtime after
which he eats lunch and then resumes watching television. Anglemyer states the only time he
leaves is when his wife has a doctor’s appointment or he has an appointment. Anglemyer
indicated that he does the driving for both his wife and himself. Between 3:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m.
is usually when Anglemyer and his wife eat dinner, which they take turns cooking. Anglemyer
said that he does not do the dishes because he is not able to stand at the sink that long.
Anglemyer indicated that after the evening meal, he returns to watching television until he goes
to bed. Anglemyer said his bedtime can range from 5:00 p.m. to midnight and that he uses his CPAP to sleep. Anglemyer noted that he had problems dressing, showering, and shaving, which
required his wife’s assistance . As to grocery shopping, Anglemyer explained that he drives his
wife and roommate to the store and then waits in his vehicle while they shop. Anglemyer
admitted that he is able to do the laundry and sweep occasionally. Anglemyer said he has no
hobbies because of his fear to do anything.
8
Anglemyer estimated that he could lift at most a gallon of milk. He also estimated that
he could only walk for five minutes at a time, at most, but that he could repeat this about five to
seven times during a standard eight-hour work day. Anglemyer said he could stand for similar
amounts of time. Anglemyer also indicated that he could not sit in a straight backed chair for
very long. Despite these limitations, Anglemeyer testified that he has no problems with driving.
III.
ANALYSIS
A.
Standard of Review
The Social Security Act authorizes judicial review of decisions of the agency. The court
will uphold the decision of the agency as long as the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial
evidence and free of legal error. 42 U.S.C § 405(g); Briscoe v. Barnhart, 425 F.3d 345, 351 (7th
Cir. 2005). Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla and means such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept to support such a conclusion. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S.
389, 401 (1972). A reviewing court must not substitute its own opinion for that of the ALJ’s or
re-weigh the evidence, resolve conflicts in the record, or decide questions of credibility. Boiles v.
Barnhart, 395 F.3d 421, 425 (7th Cir. 2005); Lopez v. Barnhart, 336 F.3d 535, 539 (7th Cir.
2003). An ALJ decision cannot stand if it lacks evidentiary support or an adequate discussion of
the issues. Lopez, 336 F.3d at 539. If an error of law is committed by the Comissioner, then the
“court must reverse the decision regardless of the volume of the evidence supporting the factual
findings.” Binion v. Chater, 108 F.3d 780,782 (7th Cir. 1997).
The Social Security regulations prescribe a sequential five-part test for determining
whether a claimant is disabled. The ALJ must consider whether: 1) the claimant is presently
employed; 2) the claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments; 3) the
9
claimant’s impairment meets or equals any impairment listed in the regulations as being so
severe as to preclude substantial gainful activity; 4) the claimant’s RFC leaves him unable to
perform his past relevant work; and 5) whether the claimant can perform other work in the
national economy given the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and experience. Briscoe, 425 F.3d
at 352; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i)-(v); 20 C.F.R §§ 416.920(a)(4)(i)-(v).4 If the ALJ can
find that the claimant is not disabled at any step, he does not go on to the next step. 20 C.F.R. §§
404.1520(a)(4).
In his decision, an ALJ must, at a minimum, provide the rationale for his decision or
otherwise provide analysis of the evidence in order to allow the reviewing court to trace the path
of his reasoning and to be assured that he considered the important evidence. Scott v. Barnhart,
297 F.3d 589, 595 (7th Cir. 2002). The ALJ is not, however, required to address “every piece of
evidence or testimony in the record,” but rather provide some insight into the reasoning behind
the decision to deny benefits. Zurawski v. Halter, 245 F.3d 881, 888 (7th Cir. 2001). The ALJ
must build an “accurate and logical bridge from the agency’s ultimate findings and afford a
claimant meaningful judicial review.” Young, 362 F.3d at 1002. “If reasonable minds could
differ about the disability status of a claimant, the Court must affirm the Commissioner’s
[decision] if it is adequately supported.” Elder v. Astrue, 529 F3d 408, 413 (7th Cir. 2008).
B.
Issues for Review
In this case, Anglemyer raises two major issues for review. First, Anglemyer contends
that substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s RFC determination because (1) the ALJ
failed to account for all of Anglemyer’s physical and mental impairments in his opinion and (2)
4
The regulations governing the determination of disability for DIB are found at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1504 et. seq. The
SSI regulations are substantially identical to the DIB regulations and are set forth at 20 C.F.R. § 416.901 et. seq. For
convenience, only the DIB regulations will be cited henceforth in this opinion.
10
the ALJ failed to account for Anglemyer’s deficiencies in concentration, persistence, and pace in
reaching that RFC. Second, Anglemyer contends that the ALJ’s conclusion at step five that
significant numbers of job exist in the national economy that Anglemyer can perform despite his
limitations is not supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, Anglemyer argues that the
ALJ improperly relied upon the Medical-Vocational Guidelines (“the Grids”) at step five rather
than presenting his non-exertional limitations to the VE to generate testimony sufficient to
satisfy the step five requirements.
1.
The RFC is supported by substantial evidence.
A claimant’s RFC demonstrates his ability to do physical and mental work activities on a
sustained basis despite functional limitations caused by any medically determinable impairments
and their symptoms, including pain. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545; SSR 96–8p 1996. In making a proper
RFC determination, the ALJ must consider all of the relevant evidence in the case record,
including evidence of functional limitations resulting from nonsevere impairments. 20 C.F.R. §
404.1545; see also Craft v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 668, 676 (7th Cir.2008). Relevant evidence may
include medical signs, diagnostic findings, the claimant’s statements about the severity and
limitations of symptoms, statements and other information provided by treating or examining
physicians and psychologists, and third party witness reports. SSR 96–7p 1996. The claimant
carries the burden of providing medical evidence showing how her impairments affect her
functioning. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1512(c).
a.
The ALJ considered all of Anglemyer’s impairments.
Anglemyer contends that the ALJ failed to account for his diagnoses of PTSD, psychotic
disorder, headaches, right knee pain, COPD, or hip pain in the RFC and how those impairments
11
affected his ability to sustain the exertional and mental demands of performing the full range of
unskilled, light work. Discussion of a claimant’s diagnoses in an ALJ’s opinion without an
explanation of how the resulting functional limitations affected the RFC determination fails to
create the logical bridge necessary to ensure meaningful review of the ALJ’s opinion. See Arnett
v. Astrue, 676 F.3d 586, 592 (7th Cir. 2012). An ALJ need not mention every piece of evidence
in the record, but must connect the evidence to the conclusion. Denton v. Astrue, 596 F.3d 419,
425 (7th Cir. 2010); Simila v. Astrue, 573 F.3d 503, 516 (7th Cir. 2009); Zurawski, 245 F.3d at
888–89. The ALJ did just that in this opinion despite Anglemyer’s claims to the contrary.
First, the ALJ described with particularity all of the incidents of medical treatment for
each of the allegedly unaccounted for diagnoses. Along with those descriptions, the ALJ
provided information on Anglemyer’s claimed symptoms, medical testing results as to those
complaints, and explanations for the weight, often limited, he accorded each set of medical data.
Second, after his lengthy review of the medical data included in the record on the diagnoses here
at issue, the ALJ then concluded the RFC section by articulating the reasons why the diagnoses
failed to result in limitations on Anglemyer’s RFC beyond those incorporated into the unskilled,
light work category. Specifically, the ALJ noted the “numerous unremarkable physical
examinations of record, none of which provide clinical or objective support for these extreme
limitations.” Doc. No. 10 at 34. As to Angelmyer’s mental limitations, the ALJ referenced
inconsistencies between Anglemyer’s testimony and reported symptoms and the medical record
as well as some inconsistencies within the doctors’ reports. The ALJ also pointed to evidence
that Anglemyer’s motive for disability was questionable and his history of histrionics related to
symptoms often easily managed through medication. The ALJ also mentioned that Anglemyer’s
12
most recent diagnoses were limited to insomnia and personality disorders. In addition, the ALJ
mentioned Anglemyer’s history of noncompliance as well as the consultative examiners’
conclusions that Anglemyer’s activities of daily living were limited primarily by physical, not
mental, issues and that his comprehension and attention were within normal limits.
After his thorough review of Anglemyer’s longitudinal medical record and his
description of the breadth of issues affecting the determination of Angelmyer’s limitations, the
ALJ assigned the RFC of full range of unskilled, light work—an RFC more limited that the one
recommended by a consultative examiner—based on the evidence confirming Anglemyer’s
many slight limitations. Anglemyer may not agree with the weight the ALJ decided to place on
the impairments at issue, but the Court cannot reweigh the evidence itself. Because the ALJ
accounted for the symptoms related to all of Anglemyer’s diagnoses, including PTSD, psychotic
disorder, headaches, right knee pain, COPD, and hip pain, in the assigned RFC, the Court must
affirm this aspect of the ALJ’s opinion.
b.
The ALJ accounted for deficiencies in concentration,
persistence, and pace.
Anglemyer also challenges the ALJ’s RFC determination by arguing that it is
inconsistent with the ALJ’s own findings at Step Three noting Anglemyer’s moderate difficulties
with concentration, persistence, and pace due to his severe mental impairments of personality
disorder and depression. At Step Three, the ALJ must assess the severity of the functional
limitations imposed by the claimant’s severe mental impairments when determining whether
those severe mental impairments meet or equal a Listing to qualify the claimant for disability
benefits. See 20 C.F.R. 404, Subpart P, App. 1, § 12.00. One part of this Step Three analysis is
consideration of the “paragraph B” criteria, which include the four broad areas of (1) activities
13
of daily living; (2) social functioning; (3) concentration, persistence, or pace; and (4) episodes of
decompensation. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a(c)(3). The decision must also incorporate “a specific
finding as to the degree of limitation in each of the functional areas.” 20 C.F.R. §
404.1520a(e)(4). For the ALJ, the issue is not the existence of these conditions but rather their
severity and whether they have caused such severe functional limitations so as to prevent a
person from working full time. Carradine v. Barnhart, 360 F.3d 751, 754 (7th Cir. 2004). Said
another way, the diagnosis of an impairment does not establish the severity of the impairment
and its resulting limitations. Estok v. Apfel, 152 F.3d 636, 639 (7th Cir. 2004).
Anglemyer does not question the ALJ’s determination that his severe mental impairments
did not meet a Listing at Step Three. Instead, Anglemyer notes the ALJ’s finding in his
paragraph B analysis at Step Three that Anglemyer suffers from moderate difficulties in
concentration, persistence, and pace. The ALJ’s finding was based upon Anglemyer’s testimony
about difficulties with concentration, following instructions, staying on task, and his need for
special supervision when working. The ALJ also cited medical testing showing below average
intellectuality ability resulting in average cognitive difficulties despite intact memory and logical
thought processes. Anglemyer then argues that the ALJ failed to incorporate these moderate
difficulties into his RFC. As a result, Anglemyer contends that the RFC is not supported by
substantial evidence and that the wrong RFC was used at Step Five of the analysis causing an
inappropriate finding of “not disabled,” preventing Anglemyer from receiving disability benefits.
In support of his argument, Anglemyer relies solely upon O’Connor-Spinner v. Astrue,
627 F.3d 614 (7th Cir. 2010). O’Connor-Spinner addresses the proper content of hypotheticals
presented to VEs during hearings to assist the ALJ in making the Step Five decision as to the
14
number of jobs available to a claimant based on limitations on work identified through the RFC.
Specifically, the court in O’Connor-Spinner stated that “the most effective way to ensure that the
VE is apprised fully of the claimant’s limitations is to include all them directly in the
hypothetical.” Id. at 619. However, Anglemyer’s reliance on O’Connor-Spinner is misplaced in
considering whether the ALJ incorporated Anglemyer’s moderate difficulties of concentration,
persistence, and pace into the RFC. O’Connor-Spinner might be applicable if the ALJ had
actually presented a hypothetical to the VE. He did not. Instead, the ALJ relied on the MedicalVocational Guidelines at Step Five, which will be discussed below.
To determine whether O’Connor-Spinner would be applicable at Step Five, the Court
must determine whether the ALJ’s RFC determination is supported by substantial evidence.
Again, the ALJ must take into account all of a claimant’s limitations from severe and nonsevere
impairments as evidenced in the record as whole when determining an RFC. Failure to
incorporate the limitations from mental impairments that constituted Anglemyer’s moderate
difficulties in concentration, persistence, and pace could be problematic and sufficient to support
remand. Yet in this case, the ALJ considered Angelmyer’s moderate difficulties in
concentration, persistence, and pace as evidenced in his decision by reliance upon the opinions
of the state agency psychological experts, including Dr. Randal Horton and careful consideration
of other factors related to Anglemyer’s functional limitations. First, the ALJ specifically noted
Dr. Horton’s assessment that Angelmyer would still be able “to do 2-3 step command work
within physical parameters” despite his moderate difficulties in concentration, persistence, and
pace. Doc. No. 10 at 36. Second, as discussed earlier, the ALJ also carefully considered
evidence of Anglemyer’s inconsistencies, motive, histrionics, recent mental diagnoses,
15
noncompliance, comprehension, and attention in the record when determining that Anglemyer
could perform the full range of unskilled, light work5.
Anglemyer contends that “learning tasks involving 1-3 steps and having limited
concentration are two different things.” Doc. No. 29 at 4. Even if that is true, Anglemyer has
not provided this Court with any evidence in the record to counter the opinions of the
psychological consultants or the evidence showing other factors mitigating any limitations from
Anglemyer’s mental impairments. Therefore, the Court is left with an ALJ’s opinion that
thoroughly reviews, considers, and references the longitudinal record as a whole in determining
Anglemyer’s RFC. As such, the ALJ’s RFC determination is supported by substantial evidence.
2.
The ALJ’s determination that a significant number of jobs exist in the
national economy that Anglemyer can perform despite the limitations
identified in his RFC is supported by substantial evidence.
Having determined that the ALJ’s RFC determination is supported by substantial
evidence, the ALJ then found that Anglemyer is unable to perform any past relevant work—a
finding that Anglemyer does not challenge. However, Anglemyer does challenge the ALJ’s
determination at Step Five that there are a significant number of other jobs available that he can
perform in light of his RFC. In assessing whether jobs exist for a claimant like Anglemyer, the
ALJ must consider thte claimant’s RFC, age, education, and experience. 20 C.F.R. §§
404.1520(a)(4)(i)-(v). The ALJ must reach his conclusion by using the Medical-Vocational
Guidelines, also referred to as the “Grids,” or by consulting a vocational expert.
5
Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1568(a), unskilled work is defined as:
work which needs little or no judgment to do simple duties that can be learned on the job in a short
period of time . . . . [W]e consider jobs unskilled if . . . a person can usually learn to do the job in
30 days, and little specific vocational preparation and judgment are needed.
16
In Anglemyer’s case, the ALJ used the Grids. The Grids consist of a series of charts that
divide exertional work into categories: sedentary, light, medium, heavy, and very heavy. 20
C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, App. 2, §§ 201.11-204.00. The Grids allow the ALJ at Step Five to
take administrative notice of the number of unskilled jobs available in the national economy
based upon the claimant’s exertional limitations, age, education, and work experience. Heckler v.
Campbell, 461 U.S. 458, 467–68. If a claimant fits into a Grid category based on his RFC, the
Grids determine whether a claimant is found to be “disabled” or “not disabled” . Id.; 20 C.F.R.
Part 404, Subpart P, App. 2, § 200.00(c). However, when there are both exertional and
nonexertional limitations in a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ may not rely solely on the Grids to reach
a final decision on whether the claimant is “disabled” or “not disabled.” Villano v. Astrue, 556
F.3d 558, 564 (7th Cir. 2009); see also Fast v. Barnhart, 397 F.3d 468, 471 (7th Cir. 2005).
Rather, the ALJ should consult a vocational source, such as a VE, to determine whether the nonexertional limitations change the conclusion suggested by the Grids. Villano, 556 F.3d at 564.
In this instance, the ALJ applied the Grid rule 202.18 to conclude that Anglemyer is not
disabled. Rule 202.18 provides that an individual between the ages of 18 through 49 who has a
limited or less education, with skilled or semiskilled previous work experience, but no
transferable work skills, is deemed not disabled. See 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, App. 2.
Anglemyer contends that it was improper for the ALJ to apply the Grids because his RFC
included the non-exertional limitation of “unskilled work.” In the context of the Grids, all jobs
considered are unskilled. See 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subt. P, app 2 § 200.00(b). Therefore, the Step
Five analysis of Anglemyer’s RFC cannot hinge on the fact that he was limited to unskilled work
because the Grids already account for this. Consequently, because the ALJ’s RFC determination
17
was supported by substantial evidence, the ALJ properly applied the Grids to conclude that
Anglemyer is able to perform a significant number of jobs in the national economy and is not
disabled. As such, the ALJ’s Step Five determination is supported by substantial evidence and
the Court need not consider the content of the VE’s testimony further.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court concludes that the ALJ’s RFC determination and
his Step Five determination as to the availability of jobs that Anglemyer can perform are
supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the Court AFFIRMS the ALJ’s decision. The
Clerk is INSTRUCTED to enter judgment in favor of the Commissioner.
SO ORDERED.
Dated this 2nd day of April, 2014.
S/Christopher A. Nuechterlein
Christopher A. Nuechterlein
United States Magistrate Judge
18
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?