Smith v. SSA
Filing
15
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION: The decision will be remanded for further consideration. Signed by Judge G. Wix Unthank on 11/23/2011.(AKR)cc: COR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION at FRANKFORT
CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-05-GWU
VICKEY L. SMITH,
VS.
PLAINTIFF,
MEMORANDUM OPINION
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
DEFENDANT.
INTRODUCTION
The plaintiff brought this action to obtain judicial review of an administrative
denial of her applications for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) and Supplemental
Security Income (SSI). The appeal is currently before the court on cross-motions
for summary judgment.
APPLICABLE LAW
The Commissioner is required to follow a five-step sequential evaluation
process in assessing whether a claimant is disabled.
1.
Is the claimant currently engaged in substantial gainful activity?
If so, the claimant is not disabled and the claim is denied.
2.
If the claimant is not currently engaged in substantial gainful
activity, does he have any “severe” impairment or combination
of impairments--i.e., any impairments significantly limiting his
physical or mental ability to do basic work activities? If not, a
finding of non-disability is made and the claim is denied.
1
11-05 Vickey L. Smith
3.
The third step requires the Commissioner to determine
whether the claimant’s severe impairment(s) or combination of
impairments meets or equals in severity an impairment listed
in 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1 (the Listing of
Impairments). If so, disability is conclusively presumed and
benefits are awarded.
4.
At the fourth step the Commissioner must determine whether
the claimant retains the residual functional capacity to perform
the physical and mental demands of his past relevant work. If
so, the claimant is not disabled and the claim is denied. If the
plaintiff carries this burden, a prima facie case of disability is
established.
5.
If the plaintiff has carried his burden of proof through the first
four steps, at the fifth step the burden shifts to the
Commissioner to show that the claimant can perform any other
substantial gainful activity which exists in the national
economy, considering his residual functional capacity, age,
education, and past work experience.
20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520; 416.920; Garner v. Heckler, 745 F.2d 383, 387 (6th Cir.
1984); Walters v. Commissioner of Social Security, 127 F.3d 525, 531 (6th Cir.
1997).
Review of the Commissioner's decision is limited in scope to determining
whether the findings of fact made are supported by substantial evidence. Jones v.
Secretary of Health and Human Services, 945 F.2d 1365, 1368-1369 (6th Cir.
1991). This "substantial evidence" is "such evidence as a reasonable mind shall
accept as adequate to support a conclusion;" it is based on the record as a whole
and must take into account whatever in the record fairly detracts from its weight.
Garner, 745 F.2d at 387.
2
11-05 Vickey L. Smith
In reviewing the record, the court must work with the medical evidence before
it, despite the plaintiff's claims that he was unable to afford extensive medical workups. Gooch v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 833 F.2d 589, 592 (6th
Cir. 1987). Further, a failure to seek treatment for a period of time may be a factor
to be considered against the plaintiff, Hale v. Secretary of Health and Human
Services, 816 F.2d 1078, 1082 (6th Cir. 1987), unless a claimant simply has no way
to afford or obtain treatment to remedy his condition, McKnight v. Sullivan, 927 F.2d
241, 242 (6th Cir. 1990).
Additional information concerning the specific steps in the test is in order.
Step four refers to the ability to return to one's past relevant category of work.
Studaway v. Secretary, 815 F.2d 1074, 1076 (6th Cir. 1987). The plaintiff is said to
make out a prima facie case by proving that he or she is unable to return to work.
Cf. Lashley v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 708 F.2d 1048, 1053 (6th
Cir. 1983). However, both 20 C.F.R. § 416.965(a) and 20 C.F.R. § 404.1563
provide that an individual with only off-and-on work experience is considered to
have had no work experience at all. Thus, jobs held for only a brief tenure may not
form the basis of the Commissioner's decision that the plaintiff has not made out its
case. Id. at 1053.
Once the case is made, however, if the Commissioner has failed to properly
prove that there is work in the national economy which the plaintiff can perform,
3
11-05 Vickey L. Smith
then an award of benefits may, under certain circumstances, be had. E.g., Faucher
v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 17 F.3d 171 (6th Cir. 1994). One of the
ways for the Commissioner to perform this task is through the use of the medical
vocational guidelines which appear at 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2
and analyze factors such as residual functional capacity, age, education and work
experience.
One of the residual functional capacity levels used in the guidelines, called
"light" level work, involves lifting no more than twenty pounds at a time with frequent
lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to ten pounds; a job is listed in this category
if it encompasses a great deal of walking or standing, or when it involves sitting
most of the time with some pushing and pulling of arm or leg controls; by definition,
a person capable of this level of activity must have the ability to do substantially all
these activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(b). "Sedentary work" is defined as having
the capacity to lift no more than ten pounds at a time and occasionally lift or carry
small articles and an occasional amount of walking and standing. 20 C.F.R. §
404.1567(a), 416.967(a).
However, when a claimant suffers from an impairment "that significantly
diminishes his capacity to work, but does not manifest itself as a limitation on
strength, for example, where a claimant suffers from a mental illness . . .
manipulative restrictions . . . or heightened sensitivity to environmental
4
11-05 Vickey L. Smith
contaminants . . . rote application of the grid [guidelines] is inappropriate . . . ."
Abbott v. Sullivan, 905 F.2d 918, 926 (6th Cir. 1990).
If this non-exertional
impairment is significant, the Commissioner may still use the rules as a framework
for decision-making, 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2, Rule 200.00(e);
however, merely using the term "framework" in the text of the decision is insufficient,
if a fair reading of the record reveals that the agency relied entirely on the grid. Id.
In such cases, the agency may be required to consult a vocational specialist.
Damron v. Secretary, 778 F.2d 279, 282 (6th Cir. 1985). Even then, substantial
evidence to support the Commissioner's decision may be produced through reliance
on this expert testimony only if the hypothetical question given to the expert
accurately portrays the plaintiff's physical and mental impairments. Varley v.
Secretary of Health and Human Services, 820 F.2d 777 (6th Cir. 1987).
DISCUSSION
The plaintiff, Vickey L. Smith, was found by an Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) to have "severe" impairments consisting of migraine headaches, ischemic
optic neuritis (residual vision loss), a history of rotator cuff tear (status post surgery),
a history of Hallux valgus with bunion, attentional memory deficits, depression, and
post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). (Tr. 14). Nevertheless, based in part on the
testimony of a vocational expert (VE), the ALJ determined that the plaintiff retained
the residual functional capacity to perform a significant number of jobs existing in
5
11-05 Vickey L. Smith
the economy, and therefore was not entitled to benefits. (Tr. 18-23). The Appeals
Council declined to review, and this action followed.
At the administrative hearing, the ALJ asked the VE a series of hypothetical
questions, one of which concerned a person of the plaintiff's age, education, and
work experience who was limited to sedentary level exertion, and also had the
following non-exertional restrictions. She: (1) needed to avoid workplace hazards
such as unprotected heights, climbing ladders, ropes, or scaffolds, or operation of
moving machinery; (2) could not perform any work requiring binocular vision or
depth perception; (3) was limited to no more than one, two, three step instructions
with no more than occasional contact with coworkers, supervisors, and the general
public; and (4) was restricted to jobs in which changes in the work setting would be
introduced gradually. (Tr. 57-8). The VE responded that there were jobs that such
a person could perform, and proceeded to give the numbers in which they existed
in the state and national economies. (Tr. 58-59).
The plaintiff alleged disability beginning August 8, 2007 due to residuals from
a what she thought was stroke, which had left her blind in one eye, and asthma.
She described additional problems at the hearing including migraine headaches,
herniated and deteriorating discs in her back, pain in her left shoulder following
surgery, and depression. (Tr. 36, 43, 46-49).
6
11-05 Vickey L. Smith
On appeal, the plaintiff focuses on only two issues. First, she asserts that the
ALJ erred in formulating his own functional restrictions, when the only opinions
regarding physical and psychological limitations in the transcript are from nonexamining state agency sources who did not review the entire record. Second, she
argues that the ALJ's apparent oversight of some of the medical evidence regarding
her back impairment made it impossible for him to fairly evaluate the credibility of
her subjective complaints of pain. For the reasons that follow, the court finds no
merit in the first issue, but believes that the second issue is serious enough to
warrant a remand for further consideration.
On the first issue, as the ALJ pointed out, the record contains no opinions
from treating or examining physicians indicating that the plaintiff is disabled or that
she has limitations greater than he determined. State agency reviewing physicians
Humilidad Anzures and Allen Dawson reviewed the evidence in January and May,
2008, and concluded that the plaintiff could perform medium level exertion (i.e.,
lifting 50 pounds occasionally and 25 pounds frequently), could never climb ladders,
ropes, or scaffolds, was limited to monocular vision, would need to avoid ordinary
hazards in the workplace, and avoid concentrated exposure to hazards. (Tr. 36571, 395-401). The ALJ felt their restrictions were reasonable given the objective
medical evidence regarding vision loss and migraines, but that they did not account
for her shoulder and impingement problems and chronic foot pain. (Tr. 20).
7
11-05 Vickey L. Smith
Therefore, in order to give her the benefit of the doubt, he reduced her lifting
capacity to the sedentary level. (Id.). State agency psychologists Christi Breuning
and Ann Demaree also reviewed the evidence in January and May, 2008 and
concluded that the plaintiff did not have a "severe" mental impairment. (Tr. 350,
380). The ALJ found that, although the plaintiff's allegations of a stroke secondary
to stress was not supported by the medical evidence, she did have a longitudinal
history of treatment for depression and anxiety, and gave her testimony partial
credibility in this regard. (Tr. 20). He stated that he viewed the evidence in the
most favorable light for the claimant, and imposed the additional limitations to
accommodate her moderate psychological symptoms. (Id.).
The plaintiff points out that a significant amount of evidence was submitted
following the opinions of the state agency sources, including a weeklong admission
to a psychiatric hospital in July 2008 for depression and post traumatic stress
disorder. (Tr. 402-5). However, she was discharged with a Global Assessment of
Functioning (GAF) score of 55 (Tr. 405), representing moderate symptoms or
moderate difficulty in social, occupational, or school functioning according to the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th Ed.--Text Revision)
(DSM-IV-TR), p. 34. An office note from the plaintiff's treating psychiatrist, Dr.
Ramesh Ghanta, indicates that he recommended the admission in order to "change
all her medications," and that she was having a great deal of stress at home at the
8
11-05 Vickey L. Smith
time. (Tr. 463). Shortly thereafter, the plaintiff discontinued treatment with this
source because he declined to provide her with benzodiazepine medications. (Tr.
462). Subsequent notes from a Comprehensive Care Center (CCC) reflected a
GAF score of 62 (Tr. 16, 411), which would indicate only mild limitations per the
DSM-IV-TR. No specific functional restrictions are ever given. The plaintiff appears
to be arguing that it is the Commissioner's burden to produce a medical opinion of
her functional capacity. However, it is the plaintiff's burden to prove the extent of
her functional limitations. Yer Her v. Commissioner of Social Security, 203 F.3d
388, 391 (6th Cir. 1999). There is no error on this issue.
On the second issue, the defendant correctly notes that the ALJ appears to
have overlooked some of the evidence from her treatment by Dr. Richard Lingreen,
a treating neurosurgeon. The ALJ summarized her treatment by saying that there
was "an isolated treatment note" from Dr. Lingreen dated September 22, 2008,
reflecting a complaint of low back pain and a history of treatment for degenerative
disc disease. (Tr. 16). Dr. Lingreen reported, and the ALJ noted, that her urine
drug screen was positive for methadone, which she admitted had not been
prescribed to her, and she claimed that it had been given to her by a neighbor for
severe pain. (Id.). The ALJ asserted that the plaintiff did not see Dr. Lingreen again
until almost a year later, in August, 2009. (Id.). In fact, Dr. Lingreen's office notes,
although they are difficult to read, indicate that the plaintiff was treated on four
9
11-05 Vickey L. Smith
occasions between the two visits described in the ALJ's decision, and it appears
that in October of 2008 he reviewed a CT scan of the lumbar spine which was
interpreted as showing degenerative disc disease at L5-S1, left sacroiliac joint and
right L5-S1 facet degenerative changes, and a broad-based L4-L5 disc bulge. (Tr.
541, 557). Despite the physician's initial concern about inappropriate use of
narcotics, he then proceeded to prescribe Lortab and other medications for pain
relief and muscle relaxation. (Tr. 553-57).
While neither Dr. Lingreen nor any other of the plaintiff's physicians provided
any functional restrictions, the plaintiff argues that the ALJ could not have properly
evaluated her subjective complaints of pain given his misreading of the evidence.
The ALJ did not even find the plaintiff's back problem to be a "severe" impairment,
although much of her testimony concerned her difficulty in sitting, standing, and
walking due to low back pain and numbness in the legs. (Tr. 36-7, 40-46). In
evaluating subjective complaints of pain or other disabling symptoms, the Sixth
Circuit set out the following standard:
First, we examine whether there is objective medical evidence of an
underlying medical condition. If there is, we then examine: (1)
whether objective medical evidence confirms the severity of the
alleged pain arising from the condition; or (2) whether the objectively
established medical condition is of such a severity that it can
reasonably be expected to produce the alleged disabling pain.
Duncan v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 801 F.2d 847, 853 (6th Cir.
1986). See also Social Security Ruling (SSR) 96-7p, which notes that objective
10
11-05 Vickey L. Smith
medical evidence is "a useful indicator to assist us in making reasonable
conclusions about the intensity and persistence of an individual’s symptoms and the
effects those symptoms may have on the individual's ability to function" (citing 20
C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)).
The court recognizes that medical sources did not provide any specific
restrictions related to the back problem. Nevertheless, it is conceivable that the ALJ
would have made a different credibility finding if he had seen the additional
evidence cited above. Under the circumstances of this particular case, the court
concludes that a remand to consider the evidence is required in order for the
plaintiff to receive a fair adjudication of her case.
The decision will be remanded for further consideration.
This the 23rd day of November, 2011.
11
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?