Webb v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - It is ordered that judgment shall be entered pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) AFFIRMING the Commissioner's final decision. Signed by District Judge John W. Lungstrum on 02/07/2018. (ses)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
MICHAEL FITZGERALD WEBB,
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,1
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff seeks review of a decision of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security
(hereinafter Commissioner) denying Disability Insurance benefits (DIB) under sections
216(i) and 223 of the Social Security Act. 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i) and 423 (hereinafter the
Act). Finding no error in the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) decision, the court
ORDERS that judgment shall be entered pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g) AFFIRMING the Commissioner’s final decision.
On Jan. 20, 2017, Nancy A. Berryhill became Acting Commissioner of Social
Security. In accordance with Rule 25(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Ms.
Berryhill is substituted for Acting Commissioner Carolyn W. Colvin as the defendant. In
accordance with the last sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), no further action is necessary.
Plaintiff applied for DIB, alleging disability beginning September 1, 2012. (R. 13,
202). Plaintiff exhausted proceedings before the Commissioner, and now seeks judicial
review of the final decision denying benefits. Plaintiff argues that the Administrative
Law Judge (ALJ) failed to assess residual functional capacity (RFC) on a functional basis,
erred in weighing the third-party opinion of his wife and the credibility of his allegations
of symptoms resulting from his impairments, and failed to sustain the Commissioner’s
burden at step five of the sequential evaluation process because the ALJ accepted
vocational expert (VE) testimony in conflict with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles
The court’s review is guided by the Act. Wall v. Astrue, 561 F.3d 1048, 1052
(10th Cir. 2009). Section 405(g) of the Act provides that in judicial review “[t]he
findings of the Commissioner as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be
conclusive.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The court must determine whether the ALJ’s factual
findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record and whether he applied the
correct legal standard. Lax v. Astrue, 489 F.3d 1080, 1084 (10th Cir. 2007); accord,
White v. Barnhart, 287 F.3d 903, 905 (10th Cir. 2001). Substantial evidence is more than
a scintilla, but it is less than a preponderance; it is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S.
389, 401 (1971); see also, Wall, 561 F.3d at 1052; Gossett v. Bowen, 862 F.2d 802, 804
(10th Cir. 1988).
The court may “neither reweigh the evidence nor substitute [its] judgment for that
of the agency.” Bowman v. Astrue, 511 F.3d 1270, 1272 (10th Cir. 2008) (quoting
Casias v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 933 F.2d 799, 800 (10th Cir. 1991)); accord,
Hackett v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1168, 1172 (10th Cir. 2005); see also, Bowling v. Shalala,
36 F.3d 431, 434 (5th Cir. 1994) (The court “may not reweigh the evidence in the record,
nor try the issues de novo, nor substitute [the Court’s] judgment for the
[Commissioner’s], even if the evidence preponderates against the [Commissioner’s]
decision.”) (quoting Harrell v. Bowen, 862 F.2d 471, 475 (5th Cir. 1988)). Nonetheless,
the determination whether substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s decision is
not simply a quantitative exercise, for evidence is not substantial if it is overwhelmed by
other evidence or if it constitutes mere conclusion. Gossett, 862 F.2d at 804-05; Ray v.
Bowen, 865 F.2d 222, 224 (10th Cir. 1989).
The Commissioner uses the familiar five-step sequential process to evaluate a
claim for disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520; Wilson v. Astrue, 602 F.3d 1136, 1139 (10th
Cir. 2010) (citing Williams v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 748, 750 (10th Cir. 1988)). “If a
determination can be made at any of the steps that a claimant is or is not disabled,
evaluation under a subsequent step is not necessary.” Wilson, 602 F.3d at 1139 (quoting
Lax, 489 F.3d at 1084). In the first three steps, the Commissioner determines whether
claimant has engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset, whether he
has a severe impairment(s), and whether the severity of his impairment(s) meets or equals
the severity of any impairment in the Listing of Impairments (20 C.F.R., Pt. 404, Subpt.
P, App. 1). Williams, 844 F.2d at 750-51. After evaluating step three, the Commissioner
assesses claimant’s RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). This assessment is used at both step
four and step five of the sequential evaluation process. Id.
The Commissioner next evaluates steps four and five of the sequential process-determining at step four whether, in light of the RFC assessed, claimant can perform his
past relevant work; and at step five whether, when also considering the vocational factors
of age, education, and work experience, claimant is able to perform other work in the
economy. Wilson, 602 F.3d at 1139 (quoting Lax, 489 F.3d at 1084). In steps one
through four the burden is on Plaintiff to prove a disability that prevents performance of
past relevant work. Blea v. Barnhart, 466 F.3d 903, 907 (10th Cir. 2006); accord,
Dikeman v. Halter, 245 F.3d 1182, 1184 (10th Cir. 2001); Williams, 844 F.2d at 751 n.2.
At step five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show that there are jobs in the
economy which are within the RFC assessed. Id.; Haddock v. Apfel, 196 F.3d 1084,
1088 (10th Cir. 1999).
The court considers Plaintiff’s arguments in the order presented in his Brief and
finds no error in the Commissioner’s final decision.
Function-By-Function RFC Assessment
Plaintiff’s first claim is that the ALJ erred because he first “expressed the RFC in
terms of exertional levels of work” rather than first performing “the requisite function-byfunction assessment” required by Social Security Ruling (SSR) 96-8p. (Pl. Br. 11). He
claims the “ALJ failed to perform the function-by-function assessment and address the
specific work-related abilities of pushing and pulling,” and “failed to discuss Plaintiff’s
ability to perform sustained work activities on a regular and containing basis.” (Pl. Br.
12). The Commissioner argues that the ALJ did assess Plaintiff’s abilities and limitations
on a function-by-function basis and assessed limitations consistent with the medical
opinion of Dr. Kaur, a state agency physician, and with the other medical evidence of
record. (Comm’r Br. 6-7).
Standard for Assessing RFC
The Commissioner has promulgated regulations regarding assessment of RFC. 20
C.F.R. §§ 404.1545-1546. In assessing RFC, the Commissioner is to consider a
claimant’s abilities to meet the demands of work despite his impairment(s). Id. at
§ 404.1545. The assessment is to be based upon all relevant medical and other evidence
in the record and is to include consideration of the limitations caused by all of the
claimant’s impairments, including impairments which are not “severe” as defined in the
regulations. Id. at § 404.1545(a & e). The assessment is to consider physical abilities
such as sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, pulling, reaching, handling,
stooping, and crouching; mental abilities such as understanding, remembering, and
carrying out instructions; responding appropriately to supervision, co-workers, and work
pressures; other abilities such as hearing and seeing; and the ability to tolerate various
work environments. Id. § 404.1545(b,c,d); see also §§ 404.1521, 416.921 (listing
examples of basic work activities which may be affected by impairments). At the hearing
level, it is the ALJ’s responsibility to assess RFC. Id. § 404.1546(c).
The Commissioner issued SSR 96-8p “[t]o state the Social Security
Administration’s policies and policy interpretations regarding the assessment of residual
functional capacity (RFC) in initial claims for disability benefits.” West’s Soc. Sec.
Reporting Serv., Rulings 143 (Supp. 2017). The ruling explains that assessment of RFC
involves a function-by-function consideration of each work-related ability before
expressing the RFC in terms of the exertional categories of “sedentary,” “light,” and so
forth. Id. at 143, 145-46. Failure to perform a function-by-function assessment may
result in an improper finding at step four regarding plaintiff’s ability to perform his past
relevant work as he actually performed it. Id. Moreover, because certain occupations do
not require the capacity to meet all the strength demands of the full range of work in a
particular exertional category, a failure to do a function-by-function assessment may
result in improper findings at step four regarding plaintiff’s ability to perform his past
relevant work as it is generally performed in the national economy or at step five
regarding plaintiff’s ability to perform other work in the national economy. Id. at 145-46
(also see examples 1-3, p. 146).
Plaintiff’s argument regarding function-by-function assessment is not entirely
clear. If he is alleging error merely because the ALJ stated his RFC assessment first in
finding number 6--before he explained his function-by function assessment in pages 6
through 15 of his decision--Plaintiff is elevating form over substance. The fact that SSR
96-8p requires an ALJ to perform a function-by-function consideration of a claimant’s
work-related abilities before expressing RFC in terms of an exertional category, does not
mean that the decision cannot express an RFC finding before it explains the ALJ’s
consideration and the process whereby he arrived at the RFC assessment. Here, that is
precisely what he did. (R. 18-27).
On the other hand, Plaintiff may be heard to argue that the ALJ erred because
nowhere in his decision did he state explicitly that he had considered Plaintiff’s capacity
for pushing and pulling which was limited to a particular amount. Plaintiff is correct that
the ALJ did not specifically mention Plaintiff’s capacity for pushing and pulling.
However, he noted Plaintiff’s allegations he could only lift maybe 10 to 15 pounds, and
specifically found that Plaintiff’s “testimony regarding his alleged limitations in lifting
. . . are not credible.” (R. 26). He specifically noted that Dr. Rhee provided a temporary
lifting restriction to 10 pounds for three months after Plaintiff’s spine surgery, but
accorded that opinion little weight currently because the three months period had expired.
Id. And he specifically found that Plaintiff is able to “occasionally lift 20 pounds and
frequently lift 10 pounds.” (R. 28). While this is not a discussion of pushing and pulling
capacity explicitly, it is an exertional capacity, and pushing and pulling limits are usually
found to be the same as lifting and carrying limitations. See, e.g., R. 80 (Dr. Kaur’s
opinion explaining that Plaintiff’s ability to operate hand and foot controls is no more
limited than his ability to lift and carry). Moreover, and perhaps most importantly,
Plaintiff does not argue that his ability to push or pull is more limited than his ability to
lift or carry, and the court’s review of the record finds no evidence suggesting it is. And,
in this case none of the record medical evidence conflicts with the ALJ’s
conclusion that claimant can perform light work. When the ALJ does not
need to reject or weigh evidence unfavorably in order to determine a
claimant’s RFC, the need for express analysis is weakened.
Howard v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 945, 947 (10th Cir. 2004).
Evaluation of Plaintiff’s Wife’s Statement
Plaintiff next claims that the ALJ’s evaluation of Plaintiff’s wife’s statement is
flawed and unsupported. (Pl. Br. 13). He argues that the ALJ’s reasons for according
only little weight to Ms. Webb’s statement are “contrary to the three regulations and four
rulings requiring the ALJ to consider [such] evidence as substantial evidence shedding
additional light on Plaintiff’s conditions which cannot be gleaned from objective medical
records.” Id. at 13-14. The Commissioner argues that the ALJ considered Ms. Webb’s
statement and provided his reasons for discounting the statement which are supported by
the record evidence, and while he is required to consider such third-party statements, he is
not required to accept them as true. (Comm’r Br. 8-10).
As Plaintiff’s Brief suggests, the Social Security Administration has provided a
Social Security Ruling to clarify how it considers third party statements regarding a
claimant’s abilities, capacities, and limitations. SSR 06-3p, West’s Soc. Sec. Reporting
Serv., Rulings 327-34 (Supp. 2017). In that ruling, it explains how an ALJ should
evaluate the opinion of a spouse:
In considering evidence from “non-medical sources” who have not seen the
individual in a professional capacity in connection with their impairments,
such as spouses, parents, friends, and neighbors, it would be appropriate to
consider such factors as the nature and extent of the relationship, whether
the evidence is consistent with other evidence, and any other factors that
tend to support or refute the evidence.
Id., West’s Soc. Sec. Reporting Serv., Rulings 333 (Supp. 2017).
That is what the ALJ did in this case. He noted that Ms. Webb is Plaintiff’s wife,
and that her opinion “mirrors some of the claimant’s testimony,” but that it also shows
that Plaintiff can do more than he reports he can do. (R. 27). He then noted, as the ruling
suggests, that Ms. Webb is “not a medical source and did not observe the claimant in a
professional capacity.” He explained that such an opinion has little value in deciding
whether the limitations alleged result from medical impairments. In context, he gave Ms.
Webb’s statement little weight because it was cumulative of Plaintiff’s allegations, which
he found were not credible, and because it did not show that the limitations alleged were
the result of medical impairments. Plaintiff may disagree with the ALJ’s finding, but the
ALJ applied the correct legal standard, considered the statement, and explained his
reasons for discounting the statement. Those reasons are supported by the record
evidence, and more is not required. Moreover, the rule in the Tenth Circuit has long been
that an ALJ need not make specific, written findings regarding a third party’s statement
so long as the decision reflects that the ALJ considered that statement. Blea, 466 F.3d at
914-15; Adams v. Chater, 93 F.3d 712, 715 (10th Cir. 1996).
Plaintiff claims the ALJ’s credibility determination is unsupported. He argues that
the ALJ’s determination focused on Plaintiff’s character for truthfulness rather than his
symptoms. (Pl. Br. 14). He argues that the ALJ relied on Plaintiff’s activities of daily
living to discount his allegations of disabling symptoms, but that the performance of such
activities as relied upon by the ALJ do not demonstrate an ability to work, nor establish
that Plaintiff is able to engage in substantial gainful activity. Id. at 14-15 (citing R. 26).
The Commissioner’s response points out that “Plaintiff’s only real complaint
appears to be that the ALJ’s findings about Plaintiff’s activities of daily living ‘does not
establish that [he] is capable of engaging in substantial gainful activity.’” (Comm’r Br.
10) (quoting Pl. Br. 15) (brackets in Comm’r Br.). The Commissioner cites to certain of
the ALJ’s findings of inconsistencies between Plaintiff’s allegations of disabling
symptoms and the record evidence as bases for the ALJ’s credibility finding and argues
that the record evidence supports his determination that Plaintiff’s allegations are not
credible. Id. at 11. She argues that the consistency between Plaintiff’s allegations of
symptoms and his activities of daily living is a valid consideration in the Tenth Circuit to
consider in a credibility determination. Id. at 12 (citing Bainbridge v. Colvin, 618 F.
App’x 384, 388 (10th Cir. 2015)).
The court’s review of an ALJ’s credibility determination is deferential. It is
generally treated as binding on review. Talley v. Sullivan, 908 F.2d 585, 587 (10th Cir.
1990); Broadbent v. Harris, 698 F.2d 407, 413 (10th Cir. 1983). “Credibility
determinations are peculiarly the province of the finder of fact” and will not be
overturned when supported by substantial evidence. Wilson, 602 F.3d at 1144; accord
Hackett, 395 F.3d at 1173. Therefore, in reviewing the ALJ’s credibility determinations,
the court will usually defer to the ALJ on matters involving witness credibility. Glass v.
Shalala, 43 F.3d 1392, 1395 (10th Cir. 1994); but see Thompson v. Sullivan, 987 F.2d
1482, 1490 (10th Cir. 1993) (“deference is not an absolute rule”). “However, ‘[f]indings
as to credibility should be closely and affirmatively linked to substantial evidence and not
just a conclusion in the guise of findings.’” Wilson, 602 F.3d at 1144 (quoting Huston v.
Bowen, 838 F.2d 1125, 1133 (10th Cir. 1988)); see also Hackett, 395 F.3d at 1173
Here, the ALJ noted several inconsistencies in the evidence supporting his finding
that Plaintiff’s allegations of disabling symptoms are not credible. The discogram on
September 24, 2013 showed only discordant pain which Dr. Clough noted was not a
correlating result. (R. 23, 26). After the cervical spine surgery Dr. Rhee noted and
Plaintiff reported a good result. (R. 25, 26). Although Plaintiff reported that he needed a
cane for pain management, Dr. Roberts noted that it was not required for stability. (R.
24). Finally, the ALJ noted that Plaintiff “testified that his back pain ‘limits his abilities
to do anything at all,’ yet the evidence shows that he can still perform a wide variety of
activities of daily living.” (R. 26) (apparently quoting Plaintiff’s hearing testimony at R.
43 (“my back pain limits my life and it limits me in my abilities to deal with anything at
all”)). Moreover, the ALJ also found that Plaintiff’s wife’s statement demonstrates that
he does more activities of daily living than he reported. (R. 27). This case presents the
same situation as presented in Bainbridge, cited by the Commissioner.
The ALJ did not rely on [Plaintiff’s] ADLs to establish that he could work
or as the sole basis for finding him not fully credible. Instead, the ALJ used
them as one part of h[is] adverse credibility finding, as the Commissioner’s
regulations require and our case law recognizes. The ALJ was entitled to
base h[is] adverse credibility finding, in part, on [Plaintiff’s] performance of
Bainbridge, 618 F. App'x at 388 (citations omitted). Giving the credibility determination
due deference, there is no error
In his final allegation of error Plaintiff claims the ALJ’s step five determination is
erroneous because the ALJ accepted vocational expert (VE) testimony which conflicts
with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT). Plaintiff points out that each of the
representative jobs relied upon by the ALJ, in finding that Plaintiff is able to perform a
significant number of jobs in the economy, requires frequent reaching and frequent
handling. (Pl. Br. 16). He acknowledges that the ALJ found that Plaintiff “is limited to
no overhead reaching and handling,” and appears to accept that frequent reaching and
frequent handling does not require overhead reaching or overhead handling, but argues
that it is unclear if the ALJ meant no overhead reaching and no overhead handling, or no
overhead reaching and no handling of any sort, overhead or otherwise. Id. He argues that
because the exact meaning of this limitation is unclear the court cannot know whether
substantial evidence supports the RFC determination or whether the VE testimony was
consistent with the DOT. The Commissioner argues that Plaintiff’s argument strains
credulity and that a “plain language” interpretation of the ALJ’s assessment is that the
“overhead” in the phrase “no overhead reaching and handling” relates to both reaching
and handling, and the court “should resist Plaintiff’s invitation to find conflict or
ambiguity where none exists.” (Comm’r Br. 14).
The court finds no error. A common-sense understanding of the ALJ’s finding
supports applying the adjective “overhead” in the single phrase to both of the following
gerunds, “reaching,” and “handling.” This argument is strengthened by the fact that
“[r]eaching . . . and handling. . . are activities required in almost all jobs.” SSR 85-15
1985 WL 56857, at *7 (1985) (emphasis added). If handling were precluded, this would
have been an exceedingly great limitation not supported by the record in this case.
Further support is found in the ALJ’s statement of Plaintiff’s RFC, both in the decision at
issue and in the hypothetical question presented to the VE. The ALJ provided only one
limitation modifier in each phrase containing work-related activities. “[O]ccasionally lift
20 pounds,” frequently lift 10 pounds,” “walk or stand for 6 of 8 hours,” “sit for 6 of 8
hours,” “occasionally climb stairs,” “never climb ropes, scaffolds or ladders,”
“occasionally balance, stoop, crouch, kneel and crawl,” “no overhead reaching or
handling,” “avoid prolonged exposure to cold temperature extremes, chemicals, dust,
fumes, noxious odors, and vibrating machinery.” (R. 18) (RFC assessment in the
decision) (bolding omitted) (emphases added). “[O]ccasionally lift 20 pounds, frequently
10,” “[w]alk or stand six of eight hours and sit for six of eight hours,” “occasionally climb
stairs, but never climb ropes, scaffolds or ladders, [o]ccasionally balance, stoop, crouch,
kneel and crawl,” “no overhead reaching and handling,” “avoid prolonged exposure to
cold temperature extremes, chemicals, dust, fumes and noxious odors and vibrating
machinery.” (R. 50-51) (hypothetical question at the hearing) (emphases added).
Plaintiff has shown no error in the decision at issue.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that judgment shall be entered pursuant to the
fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) AFFIRMING the Commissioner’s final decision.
Dated this 7th day of February 2018, at Kansas City, Kansas.
s:/ John W. Lungstrum
John W. Lungstrum
United States District Judge
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?