MYERS v. COLVIN

Filing 31

ENTRY ON ORAL ARGUMENT - Following the argument, the Court issued the appended findings. For the reasons expressed therein, the Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner's decision. Final judgment shall enter in favor of Commissioner. SEE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Matthew P. Brookman on 9/5/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Judge's Findings)(JRB)

1
1

THE COURT:

We're back in the matter of Trina Marie

2

Myers versus Nancy Berryhill, the acting commissioner for the

3

Social Security Administration.

4

oral arguments and I'm prepared to render an opinion on the

5

record now.

6

The parties have made their

Just by way of background or kind of setting things

7

up, plaintiff argues here legal error regarding the

8

application of the regulations to the residual functioning

9

capacity.

Does not seek remand for further proceedings but a

10

remand to award benefits.

11

filed an application for disability insurance benefits and

12

supplemental security income in March of 2012.

13

disability beginning November 2008 due to previous

14

applications -- I'm sorry.

15

application was denied initially and on review, a hearing was

16

requested and held and the ALJ denied plaintiff's application.

17

The appeals counsel denied review, making the ALJ's decision

18

the final decision in this matter.

19

And by way of background, plaintiff

Strike that.

She alleged

After her

At Step 2, the ALJ found that plaintiff's severe

20

impairments were degenerative joint disease in the right knee,

21

obesity, bipolar disorder, depressive disorder, anxiety

22

disorder, and a history of substance abuse.

23

or in combination, these impairments, nor plaintiff's

24

nonsevere impairments, were not found to meet the listings.

25

The ALJ's residual functional capacity was as follows, and I'm

Considered singly

2
1
2

quoting here directly.
Light work is defined in 20 Code of Federal

3

Regulations 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b).

4

and carrying up to 20 pounds occasionally or less than 20

5

pounds frequently; sitting six hours in an eight-hour workday;

6

standing and/or walking for at least two hours in an

7

eight-hour workday; no climbing ladders, ropes or scaffolds;

8

no exposure to unprotected heights; occasional bending,

9

stooping, kneeling, balancing and climbing of stairs; work

This includes lifting

10

that is unskilled in nature, such that it involves only simple

11

and repetitive tasks; only occasional contact with the public

12

or peers; work that is regular in expectations; and work that

13

does not involve fast-paced tasks or factor-like tasks.

14

At Step 4 the ALJ found Ms. Myers was able to

15

perform past relevant work as a house cleaner.

16

in a finding of no disability and there was no Step 5 analysis

17

conducted as a result of that.

18

This resulted

Now, this Court reviews the commissioner's decision

19

to determine if it, as a whole, is supported by substantial

20

evidence and whether the commissioner has employed the correct

21

legal standards.

22

capable of the residual function capacity to perform light

23

work as defined by the regulations; and in particular, we're

24

talking about 20 C.F.R. 404.1567(b), including and relevant to

25

this appeal, standing and/or walking for at least two hours in

The ALJ in this case found the claimant

3
1

an eight-hour workday.

2

legal error for the ALJ to find her standing and/or walking

3

was limited to two hours a day and that she could still do

4

light work.

5

Plaintiff here contends that it was

The regulations, however, provide in relevant part

6

that light work requires a good deal of walking or standing

7

and Social Security Ruling 83-10 further provides light work

8

includes frequent lifting or carrying.

9

being on one's feet up to two-thirds of a workday.

This necessitates
Thus, a

10

full range -- and I quote, a "full range" of light work

11

requires standing or walking off and on for a total of

12

approximately six hours of an eight-hour workday.

13

A plain reading of these regulations does not

14

support the contention that light work must equate to the

15

ability to stand or walk for one-third or two-thirds of a

16

workday.

17

light work requires up to two-thirds of a workday standing or

18

walking.

19

might still be light work.

20

some or even most light work requires the ability to stand or

21

walk for a third to two-thirds of the day, it does not

22

necessarily mean that plaintiff's past relevant work of a

23

housekeeper required the full range of light work.

24

that's what's important in this case.

25

The ruling only makes it clear that a full range of

Does not say that something less than a full range
Importantly, where it may be that

I think

And here an impartial medical expert, Dr. Besen,

4
1

testified as to the plaintiff's physical impairments.

2

no contesting his findings, including the standing/walking

3

capabilities where his testimony was consistent with the

4

claimant was capable of walking/standing at least two hours of

5

an eight-hour workday, and that's at the transcript pages 76

6

through 77.

7

There's

The vocational expert was present for the

8

examination.

9

on the limitations alluded to by Dr. Besen, could the

During the VE's testimony, the ALJ asked, based

10

plaintiff perform past relevant work either as she performed

11

it or as it's generally performed in the state or national

12

economy.

13

cleaner/housekeeper would be available.

14

The VE testified that based on that hypothetical,

The ALJ then downgraded the hypothetical to that of

15

a sedentary, to which the VE responded that it would no longer

16

be available.

17

aligned with Dr. Besen's testimony; and in fact, plaintiff

18

doesn't object that the ALJ's RFC is not supported by

19

substantial evidence.

20

someone capable of light work position based on the

21

walking/standing restrictions that were included in the RFC.

22

But the VE's testimony, of course discounts that argument.

23

In his decision the ALJ adopted and RFC that

Just that it was legal error to find

This case is -- the Court has looked at Johnson v.

24

Barnhart, 2014 Westlaw case 1427118 out of the Northern

25

District of Illinois.

This case is distinguishable, I

5
1

believe, from Johnson v. Barnhart.

2

District remanded -- Northern District of Illinois remanded

3

where the ALJ's RFC, which he charactered as light work, yet

4

limited the plaintiff to two hours standing/sitting.

5

important to note that that was a Step 5 finding that the

6

claimant could complete light work jobs.

7

There, the Northern

But it's

In Johnson, the Court relied on Medical-Vocation

8

Guidelines instead of employing a vocational expert.

9

important because when an RFC does not coincide with a full

This is

10

range of a category of work, such as here where the

11

plaintiff's RFC did not fully align with either light work or

12

sedentary work, it's appropriate to employ the vocational

13

expert.

14

416 F.3d 621, a 7th Circuit case from 2005.

And that was expressly stated in Haynes v. Barnhart,

15

The VE then considered the plaintiff's past relevant

16

work as to the specific limitations provided from the medical

17

expert's testimony.

18

claimant was unable to perform past relevant work and instead

19

said that although the plaintiff could stand/walk at least two

20

hours, he could perform a significant range of light work at

21

Step 5.

22

talk talking about Step 4 analysis here.

Also, the ALJ in Johnson found that the

Again, this is Step 5 analysis in Johnson and we're

23

Here it appears the ALJ did not identify specific

24

jobs in Step 5, a point the Court took issue with and noted --

25

I'm sorry.

In Johnson, the ALJ did not identify specific jobs

6
1

in Step 5 and that was a point the Court took issue with and

2

noted that's what necessitated the remand there.

3

In sum, this case is not akin to Johnson.

The

4

regulations and rulings do not support plaintiff's arguments

5

that plaintiff's sit/stand limitations ruled out all light

6

work jobs, particularly plaintiff's past relevant work which

7

the VE testified based on limitations and impairments, she was

8

still capable of performing.

9

was not legal error.

In that context I find that that

For these reasons the Court affirms the

10

decision of the ALJ in this matter.

11

record that you wish to make today?

12
13

MR. STAGGS:

THE COURT:

18

Ms. Cohn, any further record that on the

commissioner would like to make at this time?

16
17

No further record at this time.

Thank you, Your Honor.

14
15

No.

Mr. Staggs, any further

MS. COHN:

No, not at this time.

Thank you, Your

Honor.
THE COURT:

Thank you all.

I appreciate the

19

arguments today.

20

will get the appropriate docket entries on the docket just as

21

soon as we can.

22
23
24
25

I appreciate your work on the briefs.

Otherwise, we'll be in recess.

We

Thank you.