Hochstetler v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
22
OPINION AND ORDER granting Mr. Hochstetler's request to remand 1 Complaint. The Court REMANDS this case for further consideration by the Commissioner, consistent with this opinion. ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Jon E DeGuilio on 9/9/2014. (rmc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHISN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
RAYMOND L. HOCHSTETLER,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,1
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 3:13-CV-662 JD
OPINION AND ORDER
On July 1, 2013, Plaintiff Raymond Hochstetler filed a complaint in this Court seeking
review of the final decision of the Defendant Commissioner of Social Security. [DE 1.] The
matter is fully briefed and ripe for decision. For the reasons stated below, the Court REMANDS
this matter to the Commissioner for further proceedings.
I. Procedural History
Mr. Hochstetler filed an application for disability insurance benefits in March 2011 and
an application for supplemental security income in April 2011. (Tr. 298–311.) His applications
were denied in June 2011, and again on reconsideration in July 2011. (Tr. 131–34.) A hearing
was held before Administrative Law Judge Romona Scales in December 2011 (Tr. 90–130), after
which she issued a decision denying both claims (Tr. 138–51). The Appeals Council granted a
request for review of that first decision and remanded the case back to the ALJ for further
consideration of certain evidence and its effect on Mr. Hochstetler’s residual functional capacity.
(Tr. 157–61.)
1
Carolyn W. Colvin became the Acting Commissioner of Social Security on February 14, 2013. Though Mr.
Hochstetler filed his suit after Ms. Colvin took office, his complaint named the previous Commissioner, Michael J.
Astrue. [DE 1.] The subsequent briefing correctly identified Ms. Colvin as Acting Commissioner. Pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Ms. Colvin is substituted for Mr. Astrue as the defendant in this action.
A hearing was held on November 15, 2012, again before ALJ Scales. (Tr. 42–89.) On
December 28, 2012, the ALJ issued her decision, again denying both claims. (Tr. 14–34.) The
Appeals Council denied a request to review the second decision on May 13, 2013. (Tr. 1–3.)
This suit followed.
II. Facts
Mr. Hochstetler was born on September 17, 1964, and was 48 years old on the date the
ALJ rendered her decision. (Tr. 45.) He has an eighth grade education. (Tr. 47.) Mr.
Hochstetler alleges a disability onset date of April 14, 2006 (Tr. 14), and claims disability based
on both physical and mental impairments.
A.
Medical Evidence of Physical Impairments
Mr. Hochstetler claims several physical impairments contribute to his disability,
including Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disorder (“COPD”) and musculoskeletal issues with
his knees, lower back, and hands.
Medical records of Mr. Hochstetler’s physical impairments date to late 2006. On
November 6, 2006, he presented to the Bowen Center for a psychiatric assessment. Relative to
his physical condition, the notes from that assessment indicate that the ring finger on his right
hand was causing him pain, which he described as potentially having been the result of a work
injury. (Tr. 480.) Notes from a December 1, 2006, psychiatric evaluation state that Mr.
Hochstetler had undergone surgery on his left hand. (Tr. 474.)
On December 7, 2010, Mr. Hochstetler was brought to Woodlawn Hospital for anxiety.
During that examination, he reported osteoarthritis in his knees, which caused “chronic pain.”
(Tr. 511.) Additionally, a chest x-ray showed advanced COPD. (Id.)
2
On May 13, 2011, Mr. Hochstetler presented to Randall Coulter, D.O., at MedStat Urgent
Care & Occupational Health for a consultative examination. (Tr. 548.) Dr. Coulter’s review of
systems listed “skeletal abnormalities (arthritis), joint pain (low back and knees), and joint
stiffness (low back and knees).” (Id.) Mr. Hochstetler’s gait was slightly unsteady and he used a
cane to ambulate. (Tr. 549.) He could raise his legs both in a seated and supine position, but
with some difficulty due to low back pain. (Id.)
A few days later, Mr. Hochstetler presented to M. Brill, M.D., for the opinion of the state
agency medical consultant. (Tr. 554–61.) Dr. Brill noted symptoms of emphysematous
pulmonary changes and knee pain. (Tr. 555.) Dr. Brill opined the Mr. Hochstetler did not
“need” his cane for ambulation and that there was also no objective loss of strength or x-ray
evidence of arthritis that would limit Mr. Hochstetler’s ability to walk or stand. (Tr. 560.)
On August 17, 2011, Mr. Hochstetler presented to the Four County Counseling Center for
a mental evaluation. Relevant to Mr. Hochstetler’s physical condition, Despina Moise, M.D.,
noted that he had arthritis in his knees and walked with a cane. (Tr. 607.) Thirteen days later,
Mr. Hochstetler reported his arthritis to case worker Mary Osburn of the Four County
Counseling Center, who further noted that he walked with a cane. (Tr. 677.)
On February 11, 2012, Mr. Hochstetler presented to Woodlawn Hospital for coughing
and chest tightness caused by smoke inhalation. (Tr. 831.) A radiology report stated that Mr.
Hochstetler had “[m]ild hyperexpansion and flattening of the diaphragm suggestive of COPD.”
(Tr. 835.)
On August 23, 2012, Mr. Hochstetler was evaluated by William Terpstra, M.D., of
Wagoner Medical Center. Mr. Hochstetler reported pain in his lower back, hands, and right
knee. (Tr. 661.) Dr. Terpstra’s report stated that Mr. Hochstetler’s fine and gross motor
3
movements were normal; that he could walk on tiptoes and heels, as well as tandem walk and
squat; and that his gait and station were normal. (Tr. 662.)
On October 9, 2012, Mr. Hochstetler presented to Lisa Ronback, M.D., of Rochester
Orthopedics, complaining of pain in his thumb and that his fingers go numb and turn white after
an accident on his moped five days earlier. (Tr. 839.) The report states that Mr. Hochstetler has
arthritis and shortness of breath without chest pain. (Id.) A physical examination showed a
scaphoid fracture of the right wrist and joint laxity in his left hand. (Tr. 840.) After a subsequent
evaluation on October 23, 2012, Dr. Ronback determined that Mr. Hochstetler could continue to
work at his current job with a splint. (Tr. 842.)
B.
Medical Evidence of Mental Impairments
On November 6, 2006, Mr. Hochstetler presented to the Bowen Center. Mr. Hochstetler
reported hearing voices and alcohol dependence. (Tr. 479.) On December 1, 2006, he returned
to the Bowen Center for a psychiatric evaluation by Snieguole Radzeviciene, M.D. (Tr. 473.)
Dr. Radzeviciene concluded that Mr. Hochstetler suffered from “Social Anxiety Disorder” due to
panic attacks, paranoia, depression, insomnia, and “auditory hallucinations once a week.” (Tr.
473–77.) Dr. Radzeviciene also assessed that Mr. Hochstetler had limited judgment, poor
insight, low intellect, and a grossly intact memory, but that he exhibited good concentration at
the time of the evaluation. (Tr. 476.) Dr. Radzeviciene assessed a global assessment of
functioning (“GAF”) score of 50 at the time of admission.2 (Tr. 477.)
2
A GAF score measures a clinician’s judgment of the individual’s overall level of psychological, social, and
occupational functioning. See Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Text Revision 32 (4th ed. 2000).
The higher the GAF score, the better the individual’s level of functioning. While GAF scores have recently been
replaced by the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule, at the time relevant to Mr.
Hochstetler’s appeal, GAF scores were in use. See Wikipedia, Global Assessment of Functioning,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Global_Assessment_of_Functioning (last visited Sept. 3, 2014). A score of 50
indicates that Mr. Hochstetler was experiencing “serious symptoms.” Id.
4
On January 16, 2007, Mr. Hochstetler presented to psychologist Patrick Utz, Ph.D., of
Indiana Rehabilitation Services for an interview and the administration of intellectual testing.
(Tr. 491.) Mr. Hochstetler reported panic attacks and depression. (Tr. 492.) The Wechsler
Adult Intelligence Scale III showed that he measured in the “high Borderline range” with a score
of 78. (Tr. 492.) The Wechsler Memory Scale III showed that Mr. Hochstetler had “no major
memory problems.” (Tr. 493.) Dr. Utz assessed a GAF score of 50. (Tr. 493.)
On January 31, 2007, Mr. Hochstetler presented to a social worker3 at the Bowen Center
for a report on his psychiatric status. The report, which was countersigned by Dr. Radzeviciene,
assessed that Mr. Hochstetler suffered from a social phobia due to panic attacks. (Tr. 503.) Mr.
Hochstetler seemed cooperative and coherent, but his thought process was somewhat loose with
fragmented run-on sentences. (Tr. 501.) The report stated that Mr. Hochstetler would “struggle
with remembering simple tasks or instructions” and that the he would not be “reliable at any
work situation” because of his inability to leave his house. (Tr. 503–04.) The report further
stated “even if he got to work, he would lose focus . . . and not be able to finish a specific task.”
(Tr. 504.) The report estimated the probable duration of impairment to be “lifetime and
continuous.” (Tr. 505.) The report stated a GAF score of 55 to 60. (Tr. 500.)
On December 7, 2010, Mr. Hochstetler was brought to Woodlawn Hospital by EMS for
anxiety. (Tr. 511.) Kevin O’Brien, M.D., found evidence of paranoia, alcohol intoxication, and
the presence of THC; Dr. O’Brien subsequently referred Mr. Hochstetler to the Four County
Counseling Center. (Tr. 512.)
On December 30, 2010, Mr. Hochstetler presented to the Four County Counseling
Center. (Tr. 522.) He initially received an Intake/Biopsychosocial examination, which noted
mood disturbance, audio hallucinations, depression, paranoia, and problems with substance
3
The name of the social worker is not legible in the record.
5
abuse. (Tr. 525–28.) During the interview, he seemed agitated, hyper-vigilant, anxious, and
irritable. (Tr. 526.) While he had fair eye contact and intact memory, he showed low
intelligence with “loose, scattered thoughts” and “rapid speech.” (Tr. 525–26.) Mr. Hochstetler
stated that he takes care of his ill mother, but “it takes him a long time to do any chore including
making meals for himself.” (Tr. 525.) The report stated a GAF score of 40 and estimated his
prognosis as “poor.” (Tr. 525, 529.)
Mr. Hochstetler received continuing services from the Four County Counseling Center,
including regular meetings with Dr. Moise.4 On February 1, 2011, Dr. Moise conducted an
initial psychiatric evaluation. Dr. Moise observed that Mr. Hochstetler was very guarded,
suspicious, uncooperative, very irritable, and unable to focus. (Tr. 530–31.) He portrayed good
eye contact, but it was in the form of an intense stare. (Tr. 531.) While he could recall remote
events, he could not recall recent events, including the current month. (Tr. 531.) Dr. Moise also
noted insomnia and that Mr. Hochstetler experienced auditory hallucinations, which told him to
“kill others.” (Tr. 530.) Dr. Moise assessed a GAF score of 40 and recommended medication
and a reference for case management. (Tr. 534–35.)
Mr. Hochstetler continued to see Dr. Moise over the next several months and experienced
ups and downs in his mental state during that time. In February through September 2011, Mr.
Hochstetler showed some improvement in his mental state, appearing calmer and experiencing
fewer or less intense hallucinations. (Tr. 540, 542, 563, 566, 597, 619, 631.) During early
November 2011, Mr. Hochstetler was unable to obtain his medication due to financial
difficulties. (Tr. 769.) On November 22, 2011, Dr. Moise noted that he was once again hearing
voices and having trouble leaving his home due to anxiety. (Tr. 766.) On December 20, 2011,
4
Mr. Hochstetler also frequently attended the Four County Counseling Center for case management and group
therapy. (Tr. 617–643, 688–767.)
6
Dr. Moise noted that Mr. Hochstetler was hearing voices telling him to harm others, which he
was able to ignore, and that he would avoid others “so as not to get too angry at anyone.” (Tr.
754.)
In early January 2012, Mr. Hochstetler was able to afford some medication. (Tr. 749.)
On January 17, 2012, Dr. Moise noted that the voices were better, but still bothering him on
occasion. (Tr. 734.) He appeared to be coping with daily activities, but would isolate himself
fearing that he would react negatively to others. (Id.) His mood was described as “up and
down.” (Id.) In July 2012, he reported sleeping well and that he experienced no mood or
psychotic symptoms. (Tr. 703.) However, in August 2012 (while taking his medication), Mr.
Hochstetler experienced a deterioration where he started experiencing auditory hallucinations
(“the voices talk to me all the time now”) and persecutory delusions (feeling that people were
“after” him), both of which had worsened over the proceeding weeks. (Tr. 691.) Mr.
Hochstetler’s symptoms “started after he went to work[;] he stated that a co-worker kept
threatening to hurt him, and he felt scared every day he went to work. He finally asked for a
transfer, but unfortunately they do not have as many hours for him in the new department.” (Tr.
691.) Dr. Moise prescribed a new medication. (Tr. 691.)
On August 17, 2011, Dr. Moise completed a Mental Impairment Questionnaire. (Tr.
603.) Dr. Moise listed clinical findings including: psychotic disorder, polysubstance
dependence, alcohol abuse, auditory hallucinations, paranoia, mood swings such as irritability
and hostility, low intelligence, and poor memory. (Tr. 603–04.) Dr. Moise further stated that
Mr. Hochstetler had difficulty thinking and concentrating with loosening associations that make
him unable to perform work-like activities. (Tr. 604.) While medications helped reduce
irritability and psychotic symptoms, Dr. Moise listed the prognosis as guarded. (Tr. 604.) Dr.
7
Moise stated that Mr. Hochstetler’s impairments lasted or were expected to last over twelve
months, and would likely cause him to be absent from work more than three times a month. (Tr.
604–05.) Dr. Moise further opined that “he would not be able to work around others
productively” and due to “low intelligence level [and poor memory], he would not be able to
learn and carry out instructions.” (Tr. 606.)
On June 6, 2011, state agency consultant Stacia Hill, Ph.D., completed a Mental Residual
Functional Capacity Assessment. (Tr. 592–94.) Dr. Hill opined that Mr. Hochstetler was: not
significantly limited in his ability to remember locations and work-like procedures, or to
understand and remember very short and simple instructions; moderately limited in remembering
detailed instructions; not significantly limited in sustained concentration and persistence, except
moderately limited in ability to carry out detailed instructions; not significantly limited in social
interaction; and not significantly limited in adaptation, except moderately limited in ability to
respond appropriately to changes in work setting. (Tr. 592–93.) Dr. Hill additionally opined that
Mr. Hochstetler can understand, remember, and carry-out simple tasks; can relate at least
superficially on an ongoing basis with co-workers and supervisors; can attend to task for
sufficient periods of time to complete tasks; and can manage the stresses involved with simple
work. (Tr. 594.) This assessment was affirmed by state agency consultant Donna Unversaw,
Ph.D., on June 28, 2011. (Tr. 599.)
C.
Hearing Testimony
At the 2012 hearing, testimony was heard from Mr. Hochstetler, case manager Sarah
Silance, and Vocational Expert (“VE”) Leonard Fisher. (Tr. 42–43.)
8
1.
Mr. Hochstetler’s Testimony
Mr. Hochstetler is not married and lives alone. (Tr. 46.) He attended school through
eighth grade, has problems reading and writing longer words, and can perform only simple
addition and subtraction. (Tr. 47–48.)
At the time of the hearing, Mr. Hochstetler worked part-time at Modern Materials, doing
production line work. (Tr. 48.) He has worked there since approximately June 2012, with hours
varying anywhere from eight to twenty-four hours per week, though on two occasions he worked
approximately thirty-nine hours. (Tr. 48–49.) He stated that he does not receive more hours
partly because of scheduling and partly because he would not be able to work full-time, since he
cannot handle that many hours on his feet. (Tr. 49.) He described having some focus issues on
the job (Tr. 49, 65) and that he usually makes it through about four hours of work before his feet
start to get bad (Tr. 60). He further testified that he is pushing himself harder while at work and
would ideally stand for no longer than an hour and a half at one time. (Tr. 60.) He estimated
that the heaviest thing he lifts at his current employment is seven to eight pounds, but that he is
able to lift approximately twenty pounds approximately three times per day. (Tr. 50, 64–65.)
Mr. Hochstetler discussed his mental condition. (Tr. 55–59, 63–64.) He said he has to
wake up approximately three hours before work due to his anxiety and paranoia of going outside.
(Tr. 55–56.) He described this anxiety as causing him to feel like it was hard to breathe and like
he is going to pass out, which he feels despite taking prescribed medication. (Tr. 56.) Mr.
Hochstetler deals with his anxiety at work by going down on his knees and resting for two to
three minutes, which he does anywhere from two to five times per day. (Tr. 57.) He also
sometimes feels paranoid at the grocery store and so will avoid going to the store despite needing
something. (Tr. 57.) Mr. Hochstetler stated that he hears voices that “want [him] to hurt people
9
and stuff.” (Tr. 58.) He hears the voices despite taking medication, though some days are worse
than others. (Tr. 58.) The voices seem to get worse when he is around people and so he avoids
others, including co-workers, if possible. (Tr. 63.) Sometimes the voices are triggered by a
single person, but a group of three to four people cause the voices to worsen. (Tr. 64.)
Mr. Hochstetler testified that he sometimes did not take his medication, either because he
would forget or because he could not afford his medication. During the times that he could not
afford his medication, he did buy cigarettes, which he used as a form of self-medication to calm
himself. (Tr. 58–59.) He also relayed that the only side effect from his medication was
“probably dizziness.” (Tr. 64.)
Physically, Mr. Hochstetler’s knuckles in his hands fall out of their joints when lifting an
object, and he has to hold them back into place. (Tr. 59.) He believes this is caused by weak
tendons in his knuckles. (Tr. 60.) Further, he has problems with his feet and knees swelling.
(Tr. 59.) To reduce swelling in his feet, Mr. Hochstetler soaks his feet. (Tr. 60.) He believes
that he could stand about an hour to an hour-and-a-half before needing to sit for five to ten
minutes. (Tr. 60.) He can walk about 100 feet before needing to sit down and can sit in a chair
for approximately one hour before feeling discomfort in his back. (Tr. 61.) Mr. Hochstetler uses
a cane to relieve pressure off his right knee, though the cane has not been prescribed to him. (Tr.
62–63.) He further explained that, since a moped accident in October 2012, he has worn a brace
on his right hand which has limited his ability to use his cane. (Tr. 62.)
With regard to his daily activities, Mr. Hochstetler described his difficulty cooking
because of his hands and grocery shopping because of the large number of people. (Tr. 63.) He
watches television, but sometimes has trouble focusing on the plot. (Tr. 64.) He is able to
manage his own finances. (Tr. 54.)
10
2.
Ms. Silance’s Testimony
Sarah Silance is an adult case manager at the Four County Counseling Center. (Tr. 67.)
At the time of the hearing, she had been working with Mr. Hochstetler for close to a year-and-ahalf. (Id.) She had been present for Mr. Hochstetler’s hearing testimony and agreed with most
of what he had said, except she thought he did not explain the full extent of the issues with his
hands, specifically his arthritis. (Tr. 67–68.)
Ms. Silance attends many of Mr. Hochstetler’s medical appointments, to help him
remember to report all of his issues to the doctors. (Tr. 68.) She has, at times, seen symptoms or
behaviors that would make it difficult for him to work, but said that she believed Mr. Hochstetler
was more comfortable with her because of his familiarity with her and the fact that their
interactions were typically one-on-one. (Tr. 68–69.) She stated Mr. Hochstetler would get
confused and anxious, as well as withdraw, when not taking his medication. (Tr. 69.) While on
medication, he sometimes has similar problems, but she described those issues as “not nearly as
bad.” (Tr. 69.)
Ms. Silance helps Mr. Hochstetler fill out forms (beyond basic demographic information)
and helps with his mail, especially mail regarding benefits. (Tr. 69–70.) Ms. Silance believes
Mr. Hochstetler is able to keep up his home “[f]or the most part” and is motivated to do so, but
has physical difficulties with his hands and arthritis. (Tr. 71.) Ms. Silance testified that she
believes Mr. Hochstetler could not work a full-time job, because of anxiety, paranoia, and
physical problems with his hands and his knees. (Tr. 72–73.)
3.
Vocational Expert’s Testimony
The VE characterized Mr. Hochstetler’s past work as: inspector, packer, spray painter,
forklift operator, conveyor feeder/off-bearer, dishwasher, and assembler. (Tr. 75–76.) The work
11
ranged from high semi-skilled to unskilled and was performed at exertional levels from medium
to light. (Id.)
The ALJ asked the VE a series of hypotheticals regarding an individual with Mr.
Hochstetler’s age, education, vocational background, and the following abilities/limitations: can
perform no greater than light exertional work; is limited to occasional stooping, crouching,
crawling, kneeling, balance and climbing; should avoid concentrated exposure to extreme cold
and heat, wetness, humidity, fumes, odors, dusts, gases, and poor ventilation; can understand,
remember, and carry out simple, routine tasks; can maintain adequate attention and concentration
for those tasks; could relate on at least a brief superficial and ongoing basis with co-workers and
supervisors; and would be limited to occasional and brief, superficial contact with the general
public, but could otherwise manage the changes associated with the routine work setting. (Tr.
76–77.) The VE stated that such an individual could not perform Mr. Hochstetler’s previous
work. (Tr. 77.) However, the VE testified that the hypothetical individual could perform certain
unskilled and light level jobs. (Tr. 77.)
Next, the ALJ added an additional limitation to the hypothetical, namely that the person
was limited to a total of four hours of standing and/or walking during the course of the workday;
and frequent handling and fingering bilaterally. (Tr. 77.) The VE testified that such a person
could perform some of the previously listed jobs, as well as an additional job identified by the
VE. When given the additional limitations that the person requires work that is free of fast paced
production or quota, and that the person would require a position that could be best performed
independently of others or in small groups of two or three, the VE identified available jobs. (Tr.
78–79, 85–86.)
12
The VE testified that being off-task for fifteen to twenty percent of the workday would
preclude a person from sustaining competitive employment. (Tr. 79.) The use of a cane for
balance and ambulation would also preclude performing the light level jobs listed; however, the
use of a cane for ambulation only would still allow work in certain positions. (Tr. 79–80.)
Mr. Hochstetler’s counsel questioned the VE. (Tr. 80–85.) Counsel posed a hypothetical
to the VE regarding an individual of Mr. Hochstetler’s age, education, and vocational
background with the following abilities/limitations: can ambulate and carry less than ten pounds
occasionally; stand and walk for only two hours in an eight-hour day; would only occasionally
be able to lift, bend, twist, kneel, squat and could not do prolonged standing or walking; with a
light limitation and the required use of the cane when doing those two hours of standing or
walking; and sitting two hours at a time. (Tr. 80–81.) The VE answered that there would be jobs
available in certain types of unskilled, sedentary work. (Tr. 82–83.)
The VE testified that to do any kind of sedentary work requires both hands bilaterally or
frequently. (Tr. 83.) Upon questioning by counsel, the VE stated that certain jobs would be
eliminated if a person was restricted from fumes, odors, wetness, humidity, cold, and heat. (Tr.
84.) The VE also confirmed that a person would have trouble sustaining competitive
employment in an unskilled job if a person misses more than one day of work per month. (Tr.
86.)
D.
The ALJ’s Decision
On December 28, 2012, the ALJ rendered her decision, ultimately finding that Mr.
Hochstetler is not disabled. (Tr. 14–34.) At step two, she found the following severe
impairments: psychotic disorder, mood disorder, high borderline intellectual functioning, and
history of alcohol dependence. (Tr. 17.) The ALJ also noted several other impairments,
13
including: a fractured right wrist, arthritis, a respiratory condition, right hand finger pain,
osteoarthritis of the knees, lower back pain, and swelling of the feet. (Tr. 17–20.) The ALJ
found each of these impairments to be non-severe. (Id.)
At step three, the ALJ determined that Mr. Hochstetler did not have an impairment or
combination of impairments that met or medically equaled any listed impairments. (Tr. 20–23.)
Although Mr. Hochstetler did not argue before the ALJ that a listing was met, the ALJ analyzed
whether the severity of Mr. Hochstetler’s mental impairments met the criteria of listings 12.02,
12.03, 12.04, and 12.09. (Tr. 21.) She found that neither the “paragraph B” 5 nor the “paragraph
C” 6 criteria had been met. (Tr. 21–23.)
The ALJ then articulated the following residual functional capacity (“RFC”)
determination:
[Mr. Hochstetler] has the residual functional capacity to perform
light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b) in
that [Mr. Hochstetler] can lift and/or carry up to twenty (20)
pounds occasionally and up to ten (10) pounds frequently, can
stand and/or walk for about six (6) hours and can sit for about six
(6) hours during an eight-hour workday, except: [Mr. Hochstetler]
can occasionally balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, crawl, and climb
ramps, stairs, ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; [Mr. Hochstetler] must
avoid concentrated exposure to extreme temperatures, wetness,
humidity, and pulmonary irritants such as fumes, odors, dusts,
gases, and poor ventilation; [Mr. Hochstetler] can understand,
remember, and carry-out simple, routine tasks, and can maintain
adequate attention and concentration for such tasks; [Mr.
5
The paragraph B criteria for listings 12.02, 12.03, and 12.04 are that the disorder resulted in at least two of the
following: (1) marked restriction of activities of daily living; (2) marked difficulties in maintaining social
functioning; (3) marked difficulties in maintaining concentration, persistence, or pace; and (4) repeated episodes of
decompensation, each of extended duration. 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1.
6
In order to meet paragraph C criteria for listings 12.02, 12.03, or 12.04, the claimant must have a “[m]edically
documented history” of a mental disorder “of at least 2 years’ duration that has caused more than a minimal
limitation of ability to do basic work activities, with symptoms or signs currently attenuated by medication or
psychosocial support, and one of the following: (1) repeated episodes of decompensation, each of extended duration;
or (2) a residual disease process that has resulted in such marginal adjustment that even a minimal increase in mental
demands or change in the environment would be predicted to cause the individual to decompensate; or (3) current
history of 1 or more years’ inability to function outside a highly supportive living arrangement, with an indication of
continued need for such an arrangement.” 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1.
14
Hochstetler] can relate on at least a brief, superficial, and on-going
basis with co-workers and supervisors; [Mr. Hochstetler] is limited
to brief, superficial interaction with the general public; and [Mr.
Hochstetler] can manage changes in a routine work setting.
(Tr. 23.) In making that determination, the ALJ conducted a credibility analysis. (Tr. 23–32.)
The ALJ found partially credible the statements of Mr. Hochstetler concerning the
intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of his symptoms. (Tr. 25.) She determined that the
“alleged symptom severity and resulting functional limitation are not supported by the objective
evidence to the degree alleged.” (Tr. 29.) Additionally, the ALJ noted limited treatment in 2006
and 2007, followed by no treatment for any mental condition until December 2010. (Tr. 29–30.)
The ALJ summarized, regarding Mr. Hochstetler’s treatment with Dr. Moise, that he “does well
when he takes his medication as prescribed.” (Tr. 30.) She concluded:
Significantly, despite the extensive longitudinal treatment history
with Dr. Moise, as well as evaluations by other physicians, no
physician made any clinical findings of functional limitation that
would preclude the claimant from working in accordance with the
assessed residual functional capacity. Consequently, while the
record demonstrates that [Mr. Hochstetler] has severe mental
impairments, the [ALJ] finds that the resulting functional
limitations are adequately accommodated by the assessed residual
functional capacity.
(Tr. 30.)
The ALJ found the opinions of state agency medical consultants Dr. Brill and Dr.
Hasanadka to be entitled to great weight because the ALJ determined that Mr. Hochstetler was
able to perform “light” exertional levels with certain postural and environmental limitations. (Tr.
30.) The ALJ also afforded great weight to the opinions of State agency psychological
consultants Dr. Hill and Dr. Unversaw because Mr. Hochstetler “retains the capacity to
understand, remember, and carry-out simple tasks, along with social limitations largely
consistent with the assessed residual functional capacity.” (Tr. 30.) The ALJ also determined
15
that the opinion of Dr. Terpstra was entitled to great weight to the extent that it “can be
considered an opinion that [Mr. Hochstetler’s] alleged musculoskeletal impairments do not result
in more than minimal limitation in [his] ability to perform basic work activities.” (Tr. 30–31.)
The ALJ found Dr. Coulter’s findings that Mr. Hochstetler was limited to work consistent
with “sedentary” exertional level to be inconsistent with the record as a whole and to be entitled
to less weight. (Tr. 31.) Furthermore, the ALJ determined that Dr. Moise’s opinion was entitled
to little weight because her opinion is “contradicted by the majority of her own progress notes.”
(Tr. 31.)
At step four, the ALJ determined that Mr. Hochstetler was unable to perform his past
work as either an inspector, packer, painter, forklift operator, feeder/off-bearer, dishwasher, or
assembler, based on the VE’s testimony and because the jobs exceeded the limitations set forth
in the RFC. (Tr. 32.) At step five, the ALJ concluded that Mr. Hochstetler was not disabled
because jobs existed in the national economy that Mr. Hochstetler could perform despite the
limitations in the RFC. (Tr. 33.)
E.
Dr. William Terpstra
One of the issues Mr. Hochstetler raises in this case is whether the ALJ erred in
determining that the opinion of Dr. William Terpstra—one of the state consultative examiners—
was entitled to great weight. While not in the administrative record, the Court takes judicial
notice of the following information regarding the current status of Dr. Terpstra’s ability to
practice medicine:
In March 2013, the Indiana Attorney General filed petitions with the Medical Licensing
Board seeking to suspend temporarily Dr. Terpstra’s license. The state also sought to suspend
the licenses of three other doctors at Wagoner Medical Center, where Dr. Terpstra practiced.
16
State seeks license suspension for four Indiana doctors, WTHR.com, Mar. 18, 2013,
http://www.wthr.com/story/21674050/state-seeks-license-suspension-for-four-indiana-doctors
(last visited Sept. 9, 2014, as were the others websites listed in this section). In April 2013, the
Drug Enforcement Administration and the Howard County Prosecutor’s Office announced that
Dr. Terpstra had been charged with a total of twenty-four felony counts for various narcotics
distribution offenses. Owner and Employees of Indiana Medical Center Charged with Multiple
Felony Counts, Drug Enforcement Admin., April 19, 2013, http://www.justice.gov/dea/divisions/
chi/2013/chi041913.shtml. Also in April, Dr. Terpstra agreed not to practice medicine as a
condition of his bond in the criminal case; he separately agreed to have the Medical Licensing
Board declare his medical license inactive pending resolution of the matter. Scott Smith, Former
Wagoner doctor Terpstra faces medical board, Kokomo Tribune, April 25, 2014,
http://www.kokomotribune.com/news/local_news/article_eb5fa419-1533-55aa-b79ee4d2992a41f0.html.
These developments with Dr. Terpstra’s license took place after the ALJ had rendered her
decision but before the Appeals Counsel denied Mr. Hochstetler’s request for review.
III. Standard of Review
This Court will affirm the Commissioner’s findings of fact and denial of disability
benefits if they are supported by substantial evidence. Craft v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 668, 673 (7th
Cir. 2008). Substantial evidence consists of “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971).
This evidence must be “more than a scintilla but may be less than a preponderance.” Skinner v.
Astrue, 478 F.3d 836, 841 (7th Cir. 2007). Thus, even if “reasonable minds could differ” about
17
the disability status of the claimant, the Court must affirm the Commissioner’s decision as long
as it is adequately supported. Elder v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 408, 413 (7th Cir. 2008).
In this substantial-evidence determination, the Court considers the entire administrative
record but does not reweigh evidence, resolve conflicts, decide questions of credibility, or
substitute the Court’s own judgment for that of the Commissioner. Lopez ex rel. Lopez v.
Barnhart, 336 F.3d 535, 539 (7th Cir. 2003). Nevertheless, the Court conducts a “critical review
of the evidence” before affirming the Commissioner’s decision, and the decision cannot stand if
it lacks evidentiary support or an inadequate discussion of the issues. Id. Ultimately, while the
ALJ is not required to address every piece of evidence or testimony presented, the ALJ must
provide a “logical bridge” between the evidence and the conclusions. Terry v. Astrue, 580 F.3d
471, 475 (7th Cir. 2009). Further, conclusions of law are not entitled to deference; so, if the
Commissioner commits an error of law, reversal is required without regard to the volume of
evidence in support of the factual findings. Binion v. Chater, 108 F.3d 780, 782 (7th Cir. 1997).
IV. Analysis
Disability and supplemental insurance benefits are available only to those individuals
who can establish disability under the terms of the Social Security Act. Estok v. Apfel, 152 F.3d
636, 638 (7th Cir. 1998). Specifically, the claimant must be unable “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). The Social Security regulations
create a five-step sequential evaluation process to be used in determining whether the claimant
has established a disability. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4). The steps are to be
used in the following order:
18
1. Whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity;
2. Whether the claimant has a medically severe impairment;
3. Whether the claimant’s impairment meets or equals one listed in the regulations;
4. Whether the claimant can still perform relevant past work; and
5. Whether the claimant can perform other work in the community.
Dixon v. Massanari, 270 F.3d 1171, 1176 (7th Cir. 2001).
At step three, if the ALJ determines that the claimant’s impairment or combination of
impairments meets or equals an impairment listed in the regulations, disability is acknowledged
by the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(a)(4)(iii). However, if a listing
is not met or equaled, in between steps three and four, the ALJ must then assess the claimant’s
RFC, which is then used to determine whether the claimant can perform his past work under step
four and whether the claimant can perform other work in society at step five of the analysis. 20
C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e). The claimant has the initial burden of proof in steps one
through four, while the burden shifts to the Commissioner in step five to show that there are a
significant number of jobs in the national economy that the claimant is capable of performing.
Young v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 995, 1000 (7th Cir. 2004).
Mr. Hochstetler challenges the ALJ’s decision on several grounds, which the Court
restates as three challenges. First, he argues that the Social Security Administration failed to
follow its own regulations when the ALJ afforded substantial weight to the opinions of Dr.
Terpstra. Second, he argues that the ALJ erred in not properly weighing the credibility of several
other medical opinions, including that of his treating physician, Dr. Moise. Third, he argues that
the ALJ erred in finding that Mr. Hochstetler did not meet Listing 12.03.
19
The Court begins with the second argument—regarding the weight given to medical
opinions—and finds that the ALJ erred in failing to give good reasons when discounting the
medical opinion of treating physician Dr. Moise. Because this error affected Mr. Hochstetler’s
RFC, the error requires remand for further consideration. In light of the remand, the Court will
also briefly discuss other issues raised by Mr. Hochstetler, to guide the Commissioner’s
consideration on remand.
A.
The ALJ Improperly Evaluated the Opinions of Dr. Moise
One aspect of the ALJ’s decision that Mr. Hochstetler challenges is the weight given to
the opinions of one of Mr. Hochstetler’s treating physicians, Dr. Moise. Mr. Hochstetler argues
that if the opinion were given its proper weight, then the ALJ would have either found that Mr.
Hochstetler met a listing [DE 11 at 25] or that he otherwise met the standard for disability [id. at
23].
The opinion of a treating physician is generally afforded special deference in disability
proceedings. The regulations governing social security proceedings instruct claimants to that
effect:
Generally, we give more weight to opinions from your treating
sources, since these sources are likely to be the medical
professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture
of your medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective
to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective
medical findings alone or from reports of individual examinations,
such as consultative examinations or brief hospitalizations. If we
find that a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature
and severity of your impairment(s) is well-supported by medically
acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not
inconsistent with other substantial evidence in your case record, we
will give it controlling weight.
20 C.F.R §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2).
20
Here, the ALJ found that a medical source statement completed by Dr. Moise and the
opinions within it were entitled to little weight. (Tr. 22, 31). Ultimately, an ALJ’s decision to
give lesser weight to a treating physician’s opinion is afforded great deference so long as the ALJ
minimally articulates her reasons for doing so. Berger v. Astrue, 516 F.3d 539, 545 (7th Cir.
2008). The Seventh Circuit has deemed this very deferential standard to be “lax.” Id.
Nevertheless, the ALJ “must offer ‘good reasons’ for discounting the opinion of a
treating physician.” Scott v. Astrue, 647 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 2011) (citing Martinez v. Astrue,
630 F.3d 693, 698 (7th Cir. 2011) and Campbell v Astrue, 627 F.3d 299, 306 (7th Cir. 2010)).
Examples that are not “good reasons” to discount the opinion of a treating physician include:
misstating the record, Scott, 647 F.3d at 739 (“But the record does contain evidence that could be
symptomatic of manic behavior” (emphasis in original)); reading inconsistency into a treating
physician’s assessment where there is no inconsistency, id. (“But the ALJ was too quick to read
inconsistency into these statements”); and “selectively discuss[ing] portions of a physician’s
report that support a finding of non-disability while ignoring other portions that suggest a
disability,” Campbell, 627 F.3d at 306.
Here, the ALJ examined the medical source statement of Dr. Moise in two different
contexts in her decision and each time determined that the opinions were entitled to “little
weight.” (Tr. 22, 31.) The ALJ articulated the following reasons for that analysis: (1) “Dr.
Moises’s opinion is not supported by the objective evidence, including Dr. Moise’s own clinical
findings” (Tr. 22); (2) “Dr. Moise’s opinion is contradicted by the majority of her own progress
notes” (Tr. 31); and (3) “the claimant testified that he has had no attendance issues at his current
job” (id.). None of these reasons given by the ALJ are supported by the record. Additionally,
21
they appear to “cherry-pick” unfavorable evidence from the record, while ignoring evidence
supporting Dr. Moise’s opinions.
Starting with the clinical findings and progress notes of Dr. Moise, the ALJ notes that
“just weeks before submitting this medical source statement, the claimant reported to Dr. Moise
that his medication was working well and he was not experiencing any psychotic symptoms” and
that “the claimant’s mood had been stable and he was coping well with daily activities.” (Tr.
22.) The ALJ also states “Dr. Moise typically found the claimant had a euthymic mood and was
doing well when he was compliant with his medication.” (Tr. 31.)
This analysis appears to equate Mr. Hochstetler sometimes not being affected by auditory
hallucinations with an ability to sustain steady full-time employment. But making such an
equation is a fallacy. As the Seventh Circuit has noted, a “person who suffers from a mental
illness will have better days and worse days, so a snapshot of any single moment says little about
[his] overall condition.” Punzia v. Astrue, 630 F.3d 704, 710 (7th Cir. 2011); see also Scott, 647
F.3d at 740 (“people with [mental] disease experience fluctuations in their symptoms, so any
single notation that a patient is feeling better or has had a ‘good day’ does not imply that the
condition has been treated.”).
Moreover, the ALJ ignores evidence that Mr. Hochstetler did not always respond well on
medication. For example, in August 2012 Mr. Hochstetler was “taking his medication as
prescribed,” but still suffered substantial mental impairments. (Tr. 691.) Dr. Moise noted that
Mr. Hochstetler “has been experiencing auditory hallucinations (‘the voices talk to me all the
time now’), persecutory delusions (he feels that people are ‘after’ him), which have worsened
over the past few weeks.” (Id.) Particularly relevant here, the “symptoms started after he went
22
to work.” (Id.) Despite these medical records, the ALJ’s credibility analysis fails to account for
the fact that, at times, Mr. Hochstetler’s conditions is not well controlled by medication.
Similarly, the ALJ’s focus on Mr. Hochstetler’s often “euthymic” mood7 is cherry
picking and misses the point. It is true that, on many occasions, Dr. Moise’s notes describe Mr.
Hochstetler’s mood as “euthymic.” However, during some of those same visits, Mr. Hochstetler
is experiencing auditory hallucinations, appears disheveled, has a restricted affect, and is having
a hard time leaving his home due to anxiety. (Tr. 691, 734, 744, 754, 766.) Moreover, the ALJ
does not draw any logical bridge between a euthymic mood and the opinions expressed by Dr.
Moise or how a euthymic mood can sustain full-time employment in light Mr. Hochstetler’s
other mental impairments.
Finally, the ALJ either misstates or overlooks relevant portions of the record in
discounting Dr. Moise’s opinion that Mr. Hochstetler is likely to miss more than three days of
work per month due to his mental impairments.8 Here, the ALJ states: “the claimant testified
that he has had no attendance issues at his current job. While the . . . claimant currently is
working part-time, as noted above, this appears to be due to the lack of available hours, not due
to the claimant’s inability to work more hours.” (Tr. 31.)
In reaching this conclusion, the ALJ makes at least two errors. First, the lack of
attendance issues during part-time employment cannot, by itself, diminish the opinion of a
treating physician that attendance issues are likely to arise if the claimant attempts full-time
employment, since full-time employment is likely to impact the claimant’s limitations in a way
that part-time employment does not. Second, the ALJ appears to conclude that Mr. Hochstetler’s
7
Euthymia is defined as either “joyfulness; mental peace and tranquility” or “moderation of mood, not manic or
depressed.” Stedman’s Medical Dictionary (27th ed. 2000).
8
As confirmed by the VE at the December 2012 hearing, missing that much work would preclude full-time
employment.
23
mental impairments have no relationship to any potential hours limitation in his part-time
employment, stating that the department in which he works cannot provide him more hours. But
the ALJ ignores that the reason Mr. Hochstetler works in that department is at least partially
related to his mental condition. (Tr. 691 (discussing how symptoms were exacerbated by work
and Mr. Hochstetler sought a transfer to minimize his symptoms).) When viewed as a whole, the
record (including Dr. Moise’s progress notes) appears to be consistent with Dr. Moise’s opinion
regarding Mr. Hochstetler’s likely absences from full-time employment.
Based on the discussion above, each of the reasons given by the ALJ to diminish the
weight given to the opinion of Dr. Moise was not a “good reason.” Accordingly, the ALJ erred
in affording little weight to the opinion of Dr. Moise. Because this credibility determination
affected Mr. Hochstetler’s RFC determination, and thus the analysis at steps four and five, the
Court will remand to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
B.
Other Issues that may be Considered on Remand
The issues identified above are sufficient to dictate a remand for further proceedings
before the Commissioner. However, for the sake of completeness and to help ensure that the
Commissioner’s decision on remand is free from unnecessary errors, the Court briefly addresses
the other issues raised by Mr. Hochstetler in this Court.
1.
Whether Mr. Hochstetler’s Condition Meets or Equals Listing 12.03
Mr. Hochstetler argues that the opinion of Dr. Moise, discussed above, is sufficient to
demonstrate that Mr. Hochstetler’s condition meets Listing 12.03, and therefore he should be
granted benefits. The Commissioner responds that the form of the Mental Impairment
Questionnaire completed by Dr. Moise—which appears to be the only evidence on which Mr.
Hochstetler relies—was an obsolete version of the form, and therefore did not ask the doctor to
24
opine on questions relevant to the determination of whether Mr. Hochstetler’s condition met the
listing.
The Commissioner is correct that the form completed by Dr. Moise does not parallel the
current language of the Listing 12.03 criteria. For example, while the current listing looks to
number of “episodes of decompensation, each of extended duration,” see footnote 5 above, the
form completed by Dr. Moise asked about “[e]pisodes of deterioration or decompensation in
work or work-like settings.” (Tr. 607.) Additionally, while the current listing examines
deficiencies of concentration, persistence, and pace on a normative level (requiring “marked”
deficiencies to satisfy the paragraph B criteria), the form completed by Dr. Moise addressed only
the frequency of such deficiencies. (Id.) The burden at step two is on the claimant, Maggard v.
Apfel, 167 F.3d 376, 380 (7th Cir. 1999), and absent any authority or additional evidence, the
Court cannot determine on the current record that Mr. Hochstetler’s condition meets or equals
Listing 12.03.
On remand, however, the Commissioner may wish to obtain from Dr. Moise a completed
questionnaire that uses the current language of the listings in order to assess whether Mr.
Hochstetler’s condition meets or equals a listed impairment.
2.
Whether the ALJ Erred in Relying on Dr. Terpstra
Mr. Hochstetler challenges the opinions of Dr. Terpstra and the weight afforded them by
the ALJ. To the extent that Mr. Hochstetler challenges the Commissioner’s decision to refer Mr.
Hochstetler to Dr. Terpstra9—because Dr. Terpstra was not a “highly qualified physician” as
defined by the Social Security regulations—that claim is not properly before this Court.
This
argument is somewhat similar to one raised in Miller v. Jeffers, where the claimant challenged
9
In his reply brief, Mr. Hochstetler argues that “the Administration would have known [about the true qualification
of Dr. Terpstra] if they were not completely indifferent about the true qualifications of the ‘medical experts’ they
send the disabled to see.” [DE 21 at 2.]
25
the Commissioner’s monitoring of the consultative examination program. 142 F. Supp. 2d 761,
763–64 (S.D. W. Va. 2001), aff'd, 40 F. App’x 765 (4th Cir. 2002). In that case, the district
court determined that the Administrative Procedure Act barred judicial review of the agency
action, since monitoring the consultative examination program is an action “committed to agency
discretion by law.” Id. at 764. Additionally, whether or not Mr. Hochstetler should have ever
been referred to Dr. Terpstra in the first place misses the point. Mr. Hochstetler was not denied
benefits because he was referred to Dr. Terpstra; it was the weight afforded to Dr. Terpstra’s
opinion by the ALJ that affected Mr. Hochstetler’s disability determination.
With respect to the weight that should have been afforded to Dr. Terpstra’s opinion, new
and at least potentially material evidence has come to light regarding Dr. Terpstra’s fitness to
practice medicine. This evidence could bear on the credibility of Dr. Terpstra’s opinions; as Mr.
Hochstetler puts it in his reply brief, “[i]f the ALJ had known that Dr. Terpstra was an alleged
drug dealer and that his medical license was suspended, is it likely the ALJ would have still
found the opinion of Dr. Terpstra was ‘entitled to great weight’ anyway?” [DE 21 at 2.] The
Commissioner’s only response to this new information regarding Dr. Terpstra’s credibility is that
it is not in the administrative record.
A procedure does exist by which the Court can order the Commissioner to consider new
and material evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (sentence six); see also Gross v. Astrue, No. 08 CV
578(NG), 2010 WL 301945, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2010) (remanding for consideration of
weight to give opinion of doctor who had entered into consent decree to limit medical practice).
However, Mr. Hochstetler has not specifically asked for a sentence six remand in this case. In
any event, because the Court is already remanding on another ground, the Commissioner will
have an opportunity on remand to consider whether Mr. Hochstetler should be evaluated by a
26
new consultative examiner who is not saddled with the same credibility issues as Dr. Terpstra
and what weight, if any, to afford the opinions of Dr. Terpstra in light of the newly discovered
evidence.
3.
Whether the ALJ Properly Accounted for Mr. Hochstetler’s COPD
With respect to Mr. Hochstetler’s COPD, Mr. Hochstetler takes issue with the ALJ’s
statement that there was insufficient objective evidence to find that the claimant’s respiratory
condition causes more than minimal limitation in his ability to perform basic work activities.
Mr. Hochstetler argues that “[w]hat the objective evidence shows is that Mr. Hochstetler has
‘advanced COPD’ and there is no objective evidence to the contrary.” [DE 11 at 26 (emphasis in
original).] However, Mr. Hochstetler makes no attempt to show what affect the COPD would
have on his residual functional capacity, so the Court finds no error.
4.
Whether the ALJ Properly Accounted for Mr. Hochstetler’s Musculoskeletal
Issues
Finally, Mr. Hochstetler appears to argue that the ALJ should have found that his back
disorder and knee disorder were severe impairments. He argues that an earlier decision by the
same ALJ did find those conditions to be severe, but after remand (and consideration of the
opinion of Dr. Terpstra), the ALJ did not find them to be severe impairments in her 2012
decision. However, the Commissioner correctly notes that once an ALJ has found one severe
impairment, the ALJ must consider all impairments—whether or not they are severe—in
assessing the claimant’s RFC. [DE 17 at 15–16 (citing Castile v. Astrue, 617 F.3d 923, 927 (7th
Cir. 2010)).] Mr. Hochstetler does not indicate how the residual functional capacity fails to
account for any musculoskeletal issues, so the Court does not find this an independent reason to
remand. As noted earlier, the remand will provide the Commissioner an opportunity to re-assess
27
the credibility of Dr. Terpstra’s findings and their impact on Mr. Hochstetler’s RFC and claims
of disability.
V. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, Mr. Hochstetler’s request to remand is GRANTED. The
Court REMANDS this case for further consideration by the Commissioner, consistent with this
opinion.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: September 9, 2014
/s/ JON E. DEGUILIO
Judge
United States District Court
28
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?