MORRIS v. ASTRUE

Filing 23

ENTRY ON JUDICIAL REVIEW: The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED (see Entry for details). Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 2/12/2013.(SWM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

MELVIN S. MORRIS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:12-cv-00523-MJD-RLY

ENTRY ON JUDICIAL REVIEW
Plaintiff Melvin S. Morris requests judicial review of the final decision of the
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”) denying his application
for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) under Title II and for Supplemental
Security Income (“SSI”) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act (“the Act”). See 42 U.S.C.
§§ 416(i), 423(d), & 1382c(a)(3). For the reasons set forth below, the decision of the
Commissioner is AFFIRMED.1
I.

Procedural History

Morris filed an application for DIB and SSI on January 11, 2008, alleging an onset of
disability of February 1, 2006. Morris’ applications were denied initially on May 13, 2008 and
on reconsideration on August 11, 2008. Morris requested a hearing, which was held on May 25,
2010 before Administrative Law Judge Stephen Davis (“ALJ”). The ALJ denied Morris’
applications on November 22, 2010. The Appeals Council denied Morris’ request for review on
1

The parties consented to the Magistrate Judge conducting all proceedings and ordering the entry of judgment in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73. Any objections to or appeal of this decision must be
made directly to the Court of Appeals in the same manner as an appeal from any other judgment of a district court.
28 U.S.C. § 363(c)(3).

February 21, 2012, making the ALJ’s decision the final decision for purposes of judicial review.
Morris filed his Complaint with this Court on April 20, 2012.
II.

Factual Background and Medical History

Morris was 48 years old on the alleged onset date of disability. He has a twelfth grade
education and past relevant work as a framing carpenter. In August 2005, Morris was diagnosed
with hepatitis C and had a portion of his lung surgically removed. He was able to return to work
after the surgery in 2006, but then he could no longer work after he injured his back in July 2006.
In February 2006, a lumbar spine x-ray revealed mild degenerative disc disease involving the
lower lumbar spine consisting of disc space narrowing as well as mild facet hypertrophy and
sclerosis.
In March 2006 Morris sought treatment at Midtown Community Health Center
(“Midtown”) for depression, where he was treated by Robert Stuckey, LCSW. Mr. Stuckey
indicated that Morris scored in the severe range on the PHQ-9 Depression screen endorsing
anhedonia; low energy; poor sleep, appetite, and concentration; and suicidal ideation. Morris
again visited Midtown in September 2006 where he continued to score in the severe range on the
depression screen.
Morris also had a spinal MRI in September 2006. The findings revealed mild loss of disc
space height and T2 signal intensity at L1-L2, L4-L5, and L5-S1. In April 2007, Morris had a
cervical spine x-ray that revealed mild mid and lower disc height loss and anterior end plate
spurring.
In March 2008, Morris attended a consultative examination by social security physician,
Joseph Croffic, M.D. Dr. Croffic opined that grip strength, muscle tone, muscle strength, and

2

fine finger manipulative abilities were all normal, except muscle strength was 4/5 in lower
extremities bilaterally.
Morris received a mental status evaluation in April 2008 by social security doctor
Suzanne Leiphart, PhD. Dr. Leiphart diagnosed Morris with mild depressive disorder, mild
anxiety disorder, rule out learning disorder, and assigned a GAF of 53.
Joseph Pressner, PhD, a state agency psychological medical consultant, completed a
Psychiatric Review Technique in April 2008. He evaluated Morris’ mental impairments under
Listings 12.04 Affective Disorders and 12.06 Anxiety-Related Disorders. Dr. Pressner found
that, under Listing 12.04, Morris had a medically determinable impairment of depressive
disorder, mild. Under Listing 12.06, Dr. Pressner found that Morris had a medically determinable
impairment of anxiety disorder, mild. Although Dr. Pressner found that Morris had medically
determinable impairments, he opined that Morris’ mental impairments were not severe. In
assessing the “paragraph B” areas of functional limitation, Dr. Pressner opined that Morris had
only mild restriction of activities of daily living; no limitation in maintaining social functioning;
no limitation in maintaining concentration, persistence, or pace; and no episodes of
decompensation of extended duration. Dr. Pressner also noted that Morris was not withdrawn or
antisocial, displayed appropriate judgment and insight, and seemed capable of cooperating with
others.
J. Sands, M.D. completed a Physical Residual Functional Capacity (“RFC”) Assessment
on behalf of the state agency in May 2008. Dr. Sands opined that Morris could lift twenty pounds
occasionally and ten pounds frequently, stand and/or walk for about six hours in an eight-hour
workday, sit for six hours in a work day, and was able to do unlimited pushing and/or pulling.
Dr. Sands reported that there was no loss of motion in Morris’ low back, his strength was intact,

3

gait and station were normal, there were no overt neurological deficits shown, but there were
decreased breath sounds in the right lower lung lobe. Dr. Sands opined that Morris could
occasionally climb ramp/stairs, stopping, kneeling, crouching, and crawling. Dr. Sands found
that there were no manipulative limitations established. As for environmental limitations, Dr.
Sands opined that Morris should avoid concentrated exposure to extreme cold; extreme heat;
humidity; and fumes, odors dusts, gases, and poor ventilation.
Morris had a blood test in October 2009; the results showed an elevated rheumatoid
factor. He was referred to a specialist for arthralgias and possible rheumatoid arthritis in January
2010. Morris had a limited range of motion in his cervical spine with stiffness in all direction and
limited range of motion of the lumbar spine. In February 2010, Morris received an evaluation of
bilateral hand pain and numbness. Morris reported that his left hand was worse than his right and
he had cramping, numbness, or weakness, and sensation of swelling. Adam Cohen, M.D.
referred Morris to occupational therapy to get new carpal tunnel wrist splints and obtain an
electromyelogram of the left median nerve to determine whether his hand symptoms were related
to peripheral median nerve compression. Morris had an EMG in May 2010, which results
showed evidence for bilateral median neuropathy at the wrist of moderate severity – left worse
than the right.
In July 2010, the ALJ sent interrogatories to Richard Hutson, M.D. regarding the severity
of Morris’ impairments. Dr. Hutson responded that Morris had the severe impairments of
multilevel degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine and degenerative joint disease of facet
joints. Dr. Hutson also found that the impairments did not meet or equal a listed impairment. He
agreed with Dr. Sands’ RFC Assessment, noting that Morris’ hands could be used frequently, but

4

not constantly. Dr. Hutson also opined that Morris should be limited to light work due to
moderate bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, left greater than right.
III.

Applicable Standard

To be eligible for SSI and DIB, a claimant must have a disability under 42 U.S.C. § 423.2
Disability is defined as “the inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of
any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in
death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12
months.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). In order to be found disabled, a claimant must demonstrate
that his physical or mental limitations prevent him from doing not only his previous work, but
any other kind of gainful employment which exists in the national economy, considering his age,
education, and work experience. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A).
In determining whether a claimant is disabled, the Commissioner employs a five-step
sequential analysis. At step one, if the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity he is not
disabled, despite his medical condition and other factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b). At step two,
if the claimant does not have a “severe” impairment (i.e., one that significantly limits his ability
to perform basic work activities), he is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). At step three, the
Commissioner determines whether the claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments
meets or medically equals any impairment that appears in the Listing of Impairments, 20 C.F.R.
pt. 404, subpt. P, App. 1, and whether the impairment meets the twelve-month duration
requirement; if so, the claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). At step four, if the claimant
is able to perform his past relevant work, he is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f). At step
2

In general, the legal standards applied in the determination of disability are the same regardless of whether a claimant seeks DIB
or SSI. However, separate, parallel statutes and regulations exist for DIB and SSI claims. Therefore, citations in this opinion
should be considered to refer to the appropriate parallel provision as context dictates. The same applies to citations of statutes or
regulations found in quoted court decisions.

5

five, if the claimant can perform any other work in the national economy, he is not disabled. 20
C.F.R. § 404.1520(g).
In reviewing the ALJ’s decision, the ALJ’s findings of fact are conclusive and must be
upheld by this court “so long as substantial evidence supports them and no error of law
occurred.” Dixon v. Massanari, 270 F.3d 1171, 1176 (7th Cir. 2001). “Substantial evidence
means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.” Id. This court may not reweigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for that of
the ALJ. Overman v. Astrue, 546 F.3d 456, 462 (7th Cir. 2008). The ALJ “need not evaluate in
writing every piece of testimony and evidence submitted.” Carlson v. Shalala, 999 F.2d 180, 181
(7th Cir. 1993). However, the “ALJ’s decision must be based upon consideration of all the
relevant evidence.” Herron v. Shalala, 19 F.3d 329, 333 (7th Cir. 1994). In order to be affirmed,
the ALJ must articulate his analysis of the evidence in his decision; while he “is not required to
address every piece of evidence or testimony,” he must “provide some glimpse into [his]
reasoning . . . [and] build an accurate and logical bridge from the evidence to [his] conclusion.”
Dixon, 270 F.3d at 1176.
IV.

The ALJ’s Decision

The ALJ first determined that Morris met the insured status requirements of the Act
through June 30, 2010. Applying the five-step analysis, the ALJ found at step one that Morris
had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset date of February 1, 2006.
At step two, the ALJ found that Morris had the following severe impairments: degenerative disc
disease, partial lung removal, hepatitis C, and carpal tunnel syndrome. The ALJ also found that
Morris’ mental impairments were not severe.

6

At step three, the ALJ determined that Morris does not have an impairment or
combination of impairments that met or medically equaled one of the listed impairments in 20
C.F.R. Part 404, subpt. P, App. 1 (20 C.F.R. 404.1520(d), 404.1525, 416.920(d), 416.925 and
416.926).
The ALJ found that Morris had the residual functional capacity to perform light work
with the following limitations: Morris can lift and/or carry ten pounds frequently and twenty
pounds occasionally; he can stand and/or walk, off and on, for six hours during an eight-hour
workday with intermittent sitting; he can occasionally climb ramps and stairs, balance, stoop,
kneel, crouch, and crawl; he can never climb ladders, ropes or scaffolds; he must avoid
concentrated exposure to extreme cold and heat, fumes, odors, dusts, gases, poor ventilation and
the like; he is limited to using his hands on a frequent, but not constant, basis because of carpal
tunnel syndrome; and he can sit most of the time with some pushing and pulling of arm and leg
controls.
At step four, the ALJ determined that Morris was unable to perform any past relevant
work. At step five, the ALJ determined that, considering Morris’ age, education, work
experience, and RFC, there were jobs that existed in the national economy that Morris could
perform. Therefore, the ALJ determined that Morris was not disabled.
V.

Discussion

The central issue in this matter is whether there is substantial evidence to support the
ALJ’s determination that Morris is not disabled. Morris raises two arguments as to why this
Court should reverse the decision of the ALJ: 1) the ALJ improperly assessed Morris’ mental
impairments at step two; and 2) the ALJ erroneously determined that Morris was capable of full

7

time work in the RFC. For the reasons listed below, the Court finds that there is substantial
evidence to support the ALJ’s determination that Morris was not disabled.
A.

The ALJ Did Not Err at Step Two.

Morris argues that the ALJ erred in his step two analysis that Morris’ mental impairments
were not severe. Specifically, he argues that the ALJ ignored medical evidence that Morris
scored in the severe range on the PHQ-9 Depression screen. Morris also objects to the ALJ
referring to Morris’ treatment notes that indicated his depression was doing well as support that
the mental impairments were not severe.
Morris argues that the ALJ ignored medical evidence from Midtown that Morris scored
in the severe range on the PHQ-9 Depression screen in May 2006 and September 2006. The ALJ
need not discuss every piece of medical testimony. Carlson, 999 F.2d at 181. Although not
discussed, the ALJ considered the contents of the Midtown medical records. [R. 15.] The ALJ
also discussed that Morris had not returned to Midtown for over a year for treatment, and Morris
was on Zoloft and doing better. Morris cites to appellate court cases to argue that improvement
does not mean that the impairment no longer affects Morris’ ability to function in the work place,
because people tend to have good days and bad; however, Morris does not cite to anything after
September 2006 to support his claim that his depression or anxiety was disabling. In 2008, two
mental health doctors determined that Morris had only mild depressive disorder and mild anxiety
disorder. [R. 300, 301.] Dr. Pressner specifically found that Morris’ mental impairments did not
affect Morris maintaining social function; or concentration, persistence, or pace; and only mildly
affected his activities of daily living. [R. 311.] Dr. Pressner also opined that Morris was not
withdrawn or antisocial, displayed appropriate judgment and insight, and seemed capable of
cooperating with others. [R. 311.] This is substantial evidence that the ALJ relied upon and

8

accorded significant weight in support of his step two analysis. The ALJ built an accurate and
logical bridge from the evidence to the conclusion and, therefore, did not err in his step two
analysis.
B.

The ALJ’s RFC Assessment is Supported By Substantial Evidence.

Morris also argues that the ALJ erred in his RFC assessment by not providing more
limitations based on his mental impairments, specifically, that the RFC does not account for or
discuss Morris’ ability to handle stress in the workplace. Morris relies on Social Security Ruling
(“SSR”) 85-15 to support his proposition. However, Morris cites to no evidence in the record to
support a claim that he is unable to cope with work-related stress. Bradley v. Barnhart, 175
Fed.Appx. 87, 92 (7th Cir. 2006). Further, the ALJ evaluated Morris’ mental impairments and
the limitations imposed by them. [R. 15-16.] As discussed above, the ALJ relied on objective
medical evidence in determining that Morris only had mild limitations in activities of daily living
and mild limitations in concentration, persistence, or pace. Thus, the ALJ properly determined
that Morris’s mental impairments were not severe enough to be a limiting factor in the RFC
assessment. The RFC assessment is also consistent with the opinions of Drs. Sands and Hutson.
[R. 317-324, 440.]. Morris has not demonstrated that he would have an inability to cope with
stress in the workplace, thus the ALJ did not err.
Finally, Morris argues that the ALJ erroneously determined that Morris was capable of
full time work based in part on his minimal level of activities of daily living, which did not
account for the time Morris spent napping and watching television. Morris’ activities of daily
living actually played no part in the ALJ’s RFC assessment. Morris’ activities of daily living
were discussed in the ALJ’s step two analysis of determining whether Morris’ mental
impairments were severe, for which, as discussed above, the ALJ properly concluded that they

9

were not. Assuming that the ALJ had based, “in part,” the RFC assessment on Morris’ activities
of daily living, it was a very small part. Brief for Plaintiff at 15, Morris v. Astrue, No. 1:12-cv00523-MJD-RLY (S.D. Ind. October 1, 2012), ECF No. 17. The majority of the RFC assessment
was based on the medical evidence which was discussed in detail. [R. 17-20.] Even assuming
that the ALJ erred in supporting the RFC assessment with Morris’ activities of daily living, the
error was harmless as there is substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s RFC assessment which
Morris does not challenge. Because the ALJ’s RFC assessment is supported by substantial
evidence the ALJ did not err.
VI.

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination
that Morris is not disabled and the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED.

Date:

02/12/2013
Mark J. Dinsmore
United States Magistrate Judge
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:
Charles D. Hankey
[e-mail]
Thomas E. Kieper
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
[e-mail]

10