Edwards v. SSA
Filing
14
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: (1) that the Commissioners motion for summary judgment, 13 , is GRANTED; and (2) that Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, 12 , is DENIED.. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 11/17/2015. (JMB)cc: COR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
SOUTHERN DIVISION at LONDON
NANCY EDWARDS,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W.COLVIN,
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant,
Action No. 6:15-cv-44-JMH
MEMORANDUM ORDER AND OPINION
***
This matter is before the Court upon cross-motions for Summary
Judgment [DE 12, 13] on Plaintiff’s appeal of the Commissioner’s
denial of her application for social security income and disability
insurance
benefits.1
For
the
reasons
discussed
below,
the
Commissioner’s motion will be granted and Plaintiff’s motion will
be denied.
I. Overview of the Process and the Instant Matter
The
Administrative
Law
Judge
(ALJ),
in
determining
disability, conducts a five-step analysis:
1.
An individual who is working and engaging in
substantial gainful activity is not disabled, regardless
of the claimant's medical condition.
2.
An individual who is working but does not have a
"severe" impairment which significantly limits his
1
These are not traditional Rule 56 summary judgment motions.
Rather, it is a procedural device by which the parties bring the
administrative record before the Court.
physical or mental ability to do basic work activities
is not disabled.
3.
If an individual is not working and has a severe
impairment which "meets the duration requirement and is
listed in appendix 1 or is equal to a listed
impairment(s)," then he is disabled regardless of other
factors.
4.
If a decision cannot be reached based on current
work activity and medical facts alone, and the claimant
has a severe impairment, then the Secretary reviews the
claimant's residual functional capacity and the physical
and mental demands of the claimant's previous work. If
the claimant is able to continue to do this previous
work, then he is not disabled.
5.
If the claimant cannot do any work he did in the
past because of a severe impairment, then the Secretary
considers his residual functional capacity, age,
education, and past work experience to see if he can do
other work. If he cannot, the claimant is disabled.
Preslar v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 14 F.3d 1107, 1110 (6th
Cir. 1994) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (1982)).
“The burden of
proof is on the claimant throughout the first four steps of this
process to prove that he is disabled.”
Id.
“If the analysis
reaches the fifth step without a finding that the claimant is not
disabled, the burden transfers to the Secretary.”
The
ALJ
determined
that
Plaintiff
had
Id.
not
substantial gainful activity since July 18, 2011.
engaged
in
Considering
step two, the ALJ found that Plaintiff possessed the severe
impairment of degenerative disc disease.
During step three of the
analysis, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff did not have an
2
impairment or combination of impairments that met the severity
listed in 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1.
At step four, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff had a residual
functional capacity (RFC) to perform light work as defined in 20
C.F.R. § 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b) except that Plaintiff was
limited to occasional climbing of ramps and stairs; occasional
stooping, kneeling, crouching, and crawling.
Further, she should
never climb ladders, ropes or scaffolds, and she should avoid
concentrated
vibration.
exposure
to
extremely
cold
temperatures
and
Accordingly, the ALJ concluded, Plaintiff was not
disabled as defined in the Social Security Act.
Plaintiff argues that the Commissioner’s decision should be
reversed
because
she
meets
the
Social
Security
Listing
of
Impairments for Disorders of the Spine (1.04), Affective Disorders
(12.04), and Anxiety-Related Disorders (12.06).
Additionally, she
argues that the hypothetical presented to the vocational expert
was not supported by substantial evidence.
II. Standard of Review
In reviewing the ALJ's decision to deny disability benefits,
the Court may “not try the case de novo, nor resolve conflicts in
the evidence, nor decide questions of credibility.”
Cutlip v.
Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 25 F.3d 284, 286 (6th Cir. 1994)
(citations
omitted).
Instead,
judicial
review
of
the
ALJ's
decision is limited to an inquiry into whether the ALJ's findings
3
were supported by substantial evidence, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Foster
v. Halter, 279 F.3d 348, 353 (6th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted),
and whether the ALJ employed the proper legal standards in reaching
his conclusion.
See Landsaw v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs.,
803 F.2d 211, 213 (6th Cir. 1986).
"Substantial evidence is 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."
Cutlip,
25
F.3d
at
286
(citations omitted).
III. Background
At the time of the ALJ’s decision, the plaintiff was fortyfour years old.
She had worked previously as a phlebotomist, a
certified nursing assistant, a bartender, a housekeeper, and in
sales.
Plaintiff has congenital L2-L3 hemiverterbra on the left,
resulting in right lumbar scoliosis.
She suffered a herniated
disc at the C5-C6 level and underwent a cervical discectomy and
fusion in December 2005.
Most recently, she injured her low back
while working at Lowe’s in 2011.
Two days after the injury, she
was evaluated and began treatment with occupational medicine.
ultimately
received
conservative
treatment
for
the
including epidural injections and physical therapy.
She
injury,
She also
consulted with neurologists, Drs. Brooks and Scott, who diagnosed
degenerative
changes
of
the
lumbar
spine.
When
Plaintiff’s
symptoms continued, and physical therapy was unsuccessful, she was
4
referred to Dr. Swayze for pain management.
In addition to
problems with her low back and lower extremities, Plaintiff reports
depression
and
anxiety
secondary
to
her
diminished
physical
function.
IV.
Analysis
A. The ALJ did not err in finding that Plaintiff did not meet
the Listings for Disorders of the Spine, Affective
Disorders, and Anxiety-Related Disorders.
Plaintiff contends that the Commissioner’s erred at step
three by finding that Plaintiff did not meet the Listings for
Disorders of the Spine, Affective Disorders, and Anxiety-Related
Disorders. “[T]o be found disabled based upon a listed impairment,
the claimant must exhibit all the elements of the listing.”
Elam
ex rel. Golay v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 348 F.3d 124, 125 (6th Cir.
2003).
“It is insufficient that a claimant comes close to meeting
the requirements of a listed impairment.”
Id.
The portion of Listing 1.04 that Plaintiff claims to meet
requires compromise of a nerve root or the spinal cord, with
“[e]vidence of nerve root compression characterized by neuroanatomic distribution of pain, limitation of motion of the spine,
motor loss (atrophy with associated muscle weakness or muscle
weakness) accompanied by sensory or reflex loss, and if there is
involvement of the lower back, positive straight-leg raising test
(sitting and supine).”
Plaintiff has identified no evidence of
nerve root compression. In fact, upon examination of the MRI study
5
of Plaintiff’s lumbar spine, Plaintiff’s treating physician, Dr.
Scott,
remarked
compression.
that
there
was
no
evidence
of
nerve
root
Further, while the medical records include vague
references to straight leg raise testing, there is no indication
that the straight leg raise was done in sitting and supine, as
required under the Listing.
Further, Plaintiff has failed to
identify medical evidence showing that her lower extremity atrophy
was accompanied by muscle weakness or that she had any weakness in
the lower extremities at all.
Plaintiff contends that the ALJ
should have given more weight to the opinion of examining physician
Dr. Muffly, but Dr. Muffly’s report also failed to indicate that
nerve
root
compression
was
present.
Further,
Dr.
Muffly’s
examination indicated that lower extremity strength and sensation
was intact.
Accordingly, Plaintiff has not satisfied all of the
requirements of Listing 1.04, and the Commissioner’s decision with
respect to this listing is supported by substantial evidence.
Affective
disorders,
as
defined
by
Listing
12.04,
are
characterized by a disturbance of mood, accompanied by a full or
partial depressive syndrome.2
depressive
syndrome,
Medical evidence must establish
characterized
by
at
least
four
of
the
following: anhedonia; appetite disturbance with change in weight;
2
This Listing also can be met through documentation of manic
and bipolar syndromes, which Plaintiff does not allege here.
6
sleep
disturbance;
psychomotor
agitation;
decreased
energy;
feelings of guilt or worthlessness; difficulty concentrating;
suicidal
thoughts;
or
hallucinations,
delusions,
or
paranoid
thinking. Additionally, in accordance with 12.04 B, Plaintiff must
identify
evidence
of
at
least
two
of
the
following:
marked
restriction of activities of daily living; marked difficulties in
maintaining social functioning; marked difficulties in maintaining
concentration,
persistence,
or
pace;
or
repeated
episodes
of
decompensation, each of extended duration.
Plaintiff fails satisfy the criteria required under 12.04 B.
Although Plaintiff has some limitation with respect to activities
of daily living, the ALJ properly determined that she is not
markedly limited.
While she receives assistance with heavy tasks
around the house, she performs light housework, does her own
cooking, and performs self-care independently.
social
functioning
friendships
and
may
talks
be
on
reduced,
the
she
telephone
And while her
reports
daily.
maintaining
She
reports
regularly visiting her mother in the nursing home, as well.
Finally, the record does not contain any evidence of episodes of
decompensation.
Accordingly, the Commissioner’s decision with
respect to Listing 12.01 is supported by substantial evidence.
Plaintiff
also
contends
that
Anxiety-Related Disorders, 12.06.
least two of the following:
meets
the
Listing
for
This listing also requires at
marked restriction in activities of
7
she
daily
living;
marked
difficulties
in
maintaining
social
functioning; marked difficulties in maintaining concentration,
persistence or pace, or repeated episodes of decompensation, each
of extended duration.
This prong of the listing is also satisfied
by a complete inability to function independently outside the area
of one’s home.
For the reasons previously stated, Plaintiff fails
to meet this Listing and the Commissioner’s decision is supported
by substantial evidence.
B. The ALJ did not err in determining that Plaintiff possessed
the RFC to perform her past relevant work and other work
in the national economy.
Plaintiff argues that the vocational expert’s opinion, upon
which the ALJ relied, did not take into account the fact that that
Plaintiff cannot constantly move her arm “up, down, straight out,
or back.”
She contends that, had these limitations been factored
into the opinion, there would have been no jobs that Plaintiff
could do.
Plaintiff fails to identify any evidence in the record,
however, to support the limitations she contends should have been
included.
Although Dr. Muffly opined that Plaintiff should avoid
overhead activity, the ALJ gave adequate reasons for rejecting
this finding.
Further, the ALJ is not required to incorporate
limitations she does not find credible.
Casey v. Sec’y of Health
& Human Servs., 987 F.2d 1230, 1235 (6th Cir. 1993).
Plaintiff
has identified no other specific objections to the RFC or the
vocational expert’s testimony.
8
V.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:
(1)
that the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, [DE
13], is GRANTED; and
(2)
that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, [DE 12],
is DENIED.
This the 17th day of November, 2015.
9
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?