Hall v. SSA
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 1)Decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED; 2) Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment 16 is DENIED; 3) Defendant's motion for summary judgment 17 is GRANTED. A judgment will be entered. Signed by Judge David L. Bunning on 1/11/2017.(TJZ)cc: COR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-181-DLB
TONYA MICHELE HALL
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security
Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to obtain judicial review
of an administrative decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. The Court, having
reviewed the record, will affirm the Commissioner’s decision, as it is supported by
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On December 14, 2011, Plaintiff Tonya Michele Hall protectively filed her application
for Disability Insurance Benefits, alleging disability as of March 14, 2011. (Tr. 151-52).
Plaintiff’s claim was denied initially and on reconsideration. (Tr. 62-74 and 76-88). On
December 17, 2013, Administrative Law Judge Don Paris conducted an administrative
hearing at Plaintiff’s request. (Tr. 26-61). ALJ Paris ruled that Plaintiff was not entitled to
benefits on January 31, 2014. (Tr. 8-25). This decision became the final decision of the
Commissioner when the Appeals Council denied review on August 25, 2015. (Tr. 1-6).
On October 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed the instant action. (Doc. # 1). This matter has
culminated in cross motions for summary judgment, which are now ripe for the Court’s
review. (Docs. # 16 and 17).
Overview of the Process
Judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision is restricted to determining whether
it is supported by substantial evidence and was made pursuant to proper legal standards.
See Cutlip v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 25 F.3d 284, 286 (6th Cir. 1994).
“Substantial evidence” is defined as “more than a scintilla of evidence but less than a
preponderance; it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. Courts are not to conduct a de novo review,
resolve conflicts in the evidence, or make credibility determinations. Id. Rather, we are
to affirm the Commissioner’s decision, provided it is supported by substantial evidence,
even if we might have decided the case differently. See Her v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 203
F.3d 388, 389-90 (6th Cir. 1999).
The ALJ, in determining disability, conducts a five-step analysis. Step 1 considers
whether the claimant is still performing substantial gainful activity; Step 2, whether any of
the claimant’s impairments are “severe”; Step 3, whether the impairments meet or equal
a listing in the Listing of Impairments; Step 4, whether the claimant can still perform his
past relevant work; and Step 5, whether significant numbers of other jobs exist in the
national economy which the claimant can perform. As to the last step, the burden of proof
shifts from the claimant to the Commissioner. See Jones v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 336 F.3d
469, 474 (6th Cir. 2003); Preslar v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 14 F.3d 1107, 1110
(6th Cir. 1994).
The ALJ’s Determination
At Step 1, the ALJ found that Plaintiff did not engage in substantial gainful activity
from his alleged onset date through his date last insured (March 14, 2011 through
December 31, 2015). (Tr. 13). At Step 2, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff had the
following severe impairments through the date last insured: status post motor vehicle
accident resulting in right fibular, tibia and acetabular fractures and left tibial, femur, first
and fifth metatarsal fractures. (Id.).
At Step 3, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff does not have an impairment or
combination of impairments listed in, or medically equal to, an impairment listed in 20
C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. (Tr. 15). Specifically, the ALJ found that
Plaintiff’s impairments do not meet listing 1.02 (major dysfunction of a joint). (Id.). In
reaching this conclusion, the ALJ noted that while Plaintiff has required several surgeries
for her musculoskeletal injuries, treatment records indicated that she was “doing well,
ambulating with and/or without an AFO brace.” (Id.).
At Step 4, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff has the residual functional capacity
(“RFC”) to perform sedentary work, as defined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(a), with
“standing/walking 2 hours in a workday but requiring a sit/stand option with no prolonged
standing/walking in excess of ½ an hour without interruption; sit 6 hours in an 8-hour
workday; no pushing and/or pulling with foot controls; occasionally climbing ramps/stairs;
never climbing ladders/ropes; no more than frequent balancing, occasional stooping,
kneeling, crouching, or crawling; and avoidance of all exposure to full-body vibration and
all hazards such as unprotected heights and dangerous machinery.” (Id.). The ALJ further
found that Plaintiff was unable to perform past relevant work as an administrative inventory
clerk or work in data entry. (Tr. 18).
Accordingly, the ALJ proceeded to the final step of the sequential evaluation. At
Step 5, the ALJ found that there are a significant number of jobs in the national economy
that Plaintiff could perform. (Tr. 18-19). The ALJ based this conclusion on testimony from
a vocational expert (“VE”), in response to a hypothetical question assuming an individual
of Plaintiff's age, education, work experience, and RFC. (Id.). The VE testified that a
hypothetical individual with Plaintiff's vocational profile and RFC could find sedentary work
as an order clerk (223,000 nationally/2,000 Kentucky), in bench assembly (352,000
nationally, 2,400 Kentucky), or inspecting (301,000 nationally/2,100 Kentucky). (Tr. 19).
Based on the testimony of the VE and Plaintiff’s age, education, work experience, and
RFC, the ALJ found that Plaintiff is capable of making a successful adjustment to other
work and thus concluded that she was not under a "disability," as defined by the Social
Security Act. (Id.).
Plaintiff advances three arguments on appeal. (Doc. # 16). First, Plaintiff argues
that the ALJ erred by not evaluating and awarding a closed period of disability benefits.
Second, Plaintiff complains that the ALJ erred by not evaluating and awarding benefits for
meeting or exceeding listings 1.02, 1.03, and/or 1.06. Finally, Plaintiff claims that the ALJ
erred in evaluating subjective complaints, pain, and credibility. Each of these arguments
will be addressed in turn.
The ALJ did not err in declining to award a closed period of disability
Disability benefits can be awarded for a closed period. In Myers v. Richardson, 471
F.2d 1265 (6th Cir. 1972), the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that while “[t]he [Social
Security Act] itself does not provide for a closed period of benefits . . . we think it clear that
such a closed period of benefits may be awarded.” Id. at 1267 (upholding an ALJ’s
decision to award closed-period benefits) (emphasis added). A claimant who meets the
twelve-month durational requirement of 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A) may be entitled to
benefits from the time her disability commences until such time as the disability ceases.
See Howse v. Heckler, 782 F.2d 626 (6th Cir. 1986).
Plaintiff argues that a closed period of benefits was appropriate in her case:
[Plaintiff] is, at minimum, entitled to aclosed end award of benefits until her
recovery from her September 7, 2012 surgery and that date would be at her
June 26, 2013 office visit. However, you can see from the office visit note of
October 30, 2013 that she had really been struggling with her right ankle for
probably many months. The severity of that condition is well documented.
Therefore, a closed end period of disability benefits should be awarded
through the date of the hearing with remand instructions to schedule another
hearing for post December 17, 2013 treatment and issues.
(Doc. # 16 at 10). Essentially, Plaintiff is asking this Court to re-weigh the facts of
the record, which is beyond the scope of review. The question before this Court is whether
the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence.
In this case, there is substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s decision that a closed
period of disability was not appropriate. Although the ALJ did not specifically address
whether Plaintiff was entitled to a closed period of disability, the ALJ did review Plaintiff’s
entire medical record, noting instances of both struggle and improvement throughout the
years-long period. For example, the ALJ noted that “[b]y March 2012, the claimant was full
weight bearing.” (Tr. 17). After that, Plaintiff underwent another surgery, but “[b]y October
2012, the claimant was doing well an on no pain medication.” (Id.). The ALJ continues to
state that “the record contains restrictions for short-term periods which the undersigned
gives little weight because they were for short-term periods. E.g., Exhibit 5F. However,
the record contains no opinions specifying any restrictions the claimant has for long-term
periods.” (Tr. 18). The ALJ did not focus solely on Plaintiff’s current state, but considered
her entire medical history. Therefore, the record provides substantial evidence to support
his decision to decline an award of benefits, even for a temporary period.
The ALJ did not err in declining to award benefits for meeting listings
1.02, 1.03, and/or 1.06.
At the third step in the disability determination process, the Commissioner considers
the medical severity of the claimant’s impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). The
Commissioner must determine whether the claimant’s impairment meets or equals one of
the listings in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, which “describes for each of the
major body systems impairments that [the SSA] consider[s] to be severe enough to prevent
an individual from doing any gainful activity, regardless of his or her age, education or work
experience.” Id.; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1525(a). If the claimant can satisfy all of the objective
medical criteria as well as the duration requirement, then he or she “will be deemed
conclusively disabled, and entitled to benefits.” Reynolds v. Comm’r Social Sec., 424
F.App’x 411, 414 (6th Cir. 2011); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1509 (stating that the
impairment “must have lasted or must be expected to last for a continuous period of at
least 12 months,” unless it is expected to result in death). Alternatively, the claimant will
be deemed disabled if he or she demonstrates that the impairment is “at least equal in
severity and duration to the criteria of any listed impairment” and meets the duration
requirement. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1525(c)(3).
At Step 3, the ALJ identified Listing 1.02 (major dysfunction of a joint) as a possible
Listing of Impairments that Plaintiff might meet. (Tr. 15). Although Plaintiff’s medical
records indicated that she had required a host of surgeries for her musculoskeletal injuries,
the treatment record indicated that she was able to ambulate with and/or without an AFO
brace. (Id.). Thus, the ALJ concluded that the claimant did not meet Listing 1.02. (Id.).
Plaintiff contends that the objective medical evidence established that she satisfies
the first prong of Listing 1.02 (major dysfunction of joints), Listing 1.03 (reconstructive
surgery of major weight bearing joints), and Listing 1.06 (fractures of the left femur and left
tibia). (Doc. # 16 at 10). Plaintiff correctly notes that “[f]unctional loss for purposes of
these listings is defined as the inability to ambulate effectively on a sustained basis.” (Id.).
She claims that the ALJ “summarily rejected this issue without a careful consideration of
the evidence of record,” and that “when the totality of the evidence is carefully considered
it is abundantly established that [she] has an inability to ambulate effectively on a sustained
basis.” (Id. at 11). The record does not support this accusation. The ALJ carefully
reviewed Plaintiff’s medical records, finding that “late 2012 and 2013 treatment records
with Dr. Ryan Finnan indicate that the claimant was doing well, ambulating with and/or
without an AFO brace.” (Tr. 15).
Moreover, Plaintiff misunderstands the nature and scope of the Court’s review in
asking for such relief. The key inquiry is whether there is substantial evidence to support
the ALJ’s decision. And yet, Plaintiff focuses on evidence that supports her interpretation,
rather than pointing to a lack of substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s conclusion. The
Court cannot find any error in the ALJ’s conclusion based upon this bare argument. The
ALJ identified the appropriate criteria to be met for a Listing, reviewed the medical
evidence, and explained why the Listing criteria was not satisfied.
Thus, there is
substantial evidence to support his findings.
The ALJ did not err in assessing Plaintiff’s subjective complaints, pain,
Although relevant to the RFC assessment, a claimant’s description of his or her
symptoms is not enough, on its own, to establish the existence of physical or mental
impairments or disability. Soc. Sec. Rul. 96-7p, 1996 WL 374186 at *2 (July 2, 1996).
When evaluating a claimant’s symptoms, the ALJ must determine whether there is an
underlying medically determinable impairment that could be reasonably expected to
produce the alleged symptoms. Id. Once that is established, the ALJ must “evaluate the
intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the individual’s symptoms to determine the
extent to which the symptoms limit the individuals’ ability to do basic work activities.” Id.
When the claimant’s description of his or her symptoms is not supported by
objective medical evidence, the ALJ must assess the credibility of the claimant’s
statements based on the entire case record, including medical and laboratory findings,
claimant’s statements, information provided by treating or examining physicians about how
the symptoms affect the claimant, and any other relevant evidence. Id. The ALJ may also
consider the claimant’s daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of
the claimant’s symptoms; factors that precipitate and aggravate the symptoms; the type,
dosage, effectiveness and side effects off any medication the individual takes or has taken
to alleviate pain or other symptoms; treatment, other than medication, the individual
receives for pain relief; any other measures used for pain management; and any other
factors concerning the claimant’s limitations due to symptoms. Id. at *3. Credibility
determinations based solely on intangible or intuitive notions are impermissible. Rogers
v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234, 247 (6th Cir. 2007).
Plaintiff complains that in was an error “to base a decision on credibility in part upon
[her] inability to stop smoking.” (Doc. # 16 at 11). She also argues that her children “are
of a sufficient age to perform activities on their own and to give less weight to the credible
assertions of [Plaintiff] because she can take care of her children is not reason to discount
the credibility of her pain complaint,” and that “the ALJ did not adequately address all of
the factors when assessing [her] credibility.” (Id. at 12). Again, the record belies these
At Step 4, the ALJ found that the medically determinable impairments could be
reasonably expected to produce the claimant’s pain or other symptoms.
However, he observed that “the claimant’s statements concerning the intensity, persistence
and limiting effects of these symptoms are not entirely credible.” (Id.). To illustrate this
point, the ALJ provided citations to Plaintiff’s own testimony:
The claimant’s husband works as an over-the-road truck driver, and the
claimant is able to care for her children, which can be quite demanding,
without any particular assistance. She has indicated that she gets her
children up for school, prepares food for them, washes laundry, helps them
with their homework, and ensures that they care for their personal needs.
The claimant uses a computer to email regarding her children’s progress in
school and pay bills. In addition, the claimant cares for pets, makes beds,
wipes down counters, and vacuums. These activities of daily living support
the conclusion that the claimant is capable of performing a range of
sedentary work and lead the undersigned to give less weight to her
assertions regarding the severity of her condition. Further, the undersigned
gives less weight to the claimant’s assertions because while her doctors
have advised her to stop smoking, she testified at the hearing that she
continues to smoke.
(Id. at 16-17 (citing Exhibit 4F; hearing testimony)). The ALJ then proceeded to review the
objective medical evidence, noting that “the record reveals that the claimant has made
significant progress with her treatment,” and that Plaintiff was “capable of performing a
range of sedentary work.” (Id. at 17). Plaintiff’s attempt to now downplay her ability to
perform daily activities is inconsistent with her own prior testimony. The ALJ correctly
weighed Plaintiff’s own testimony about performing daily activities against her claims
regarding the severity of her impairments. The fact that the ALJ gave less weight to
Plaintiff’s credibility based on her failure to stop smoking is insignificant, as that was only
a minor part of his overall analysis.
Based on its review of the record, the Court finds that the ALJ did not err in
concluding that there were inconsistencies between the subjective severity of Plaintiff’s
symptoms and the objective medical evidence. Thus, the ALJ was required to assess
Plaintiff’s credibility. In making this assessment, the ALJ availed himself of the entire case
record, as Social Security Ruling 96-7p instructs. He not only provided examples of the
inconsistencies between the objective medical evidence and Plaintiff’s testimony, he also
highlighted the inconsistencies in Plaintiff’s own testimony. Finally, the ALJ incorporated
the limitations that he found to be justified in assigning a sedentary RFC. Under these
circumstances, the Court finds no error in this aspect of the ALJ’s Step 4 analysis.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
The decision of the Commissioner is found to be supported by substantial
evidence and is hereby AFFIRMED;
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 16) is hereby DENIED;
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 17) is hereby GRANTED.
A Judgment in favor of Defendant Commissioner will be entered contemporaneously
This 11th day of January, 2017.
K:\DATA\SocialSecurity\MOOs\Covington\2-15-181 Hall MOO.wpd
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?