Combs v. SSA
Filing
12
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: 1) Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc #10) is GRANTED; 2) Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc #11) is DENIED; 3) This action is REMANDED to the Commissioner under senten ce four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) with instructions to adequately address whether Plaintiff's arthritis and obesity meet one of the listings in the Listing of Impairments at Step 3, consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order; 4) Judgment will be entered. Signed by Judge David L. Bunning on 4/1/2016.(RC)cc: COR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
SOUTHERN DIVISION
AT LONDON
CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-104-DLB
RUTHIE JEAN COMBS
vs.
PLAINTIFF
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security
DEFENDANT
***************
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 and for the reasons set forth herein, hereby reverses and remands the
decision of the Commissioner.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On September 4, 2013, Plaintiff Ruthie Jean Combs filed her application for
Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”), alleging disability as of August 23, 2013. (Tr. 17).
Plaintiff’s claim was denied initially and on reconsideration. (Tr. 37 and 56). On September
22, 2014, Administrative Law Judge Bonnie Kittinger conducted an administrative hearing
at Plaintiff’s request. (Tr. 608-33). ALJ Kittinger ruled that Plaintiff was not entitled to
benefits on October 14, 2014. (Tr. 17-26). This decision became the final decision of the
Commissioner when the Appeals Council denied review on May 22, 2015. (Tr. 8-11).
1
On June 17, 2015, Plaintiff filed the instant action. (Doc. # 2). This matter has
culminated in cross motions for summary judgment, which are now ripe for the Court’s
review. (Docs. # 10 and 11).
II. DISCUSSION
A.
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
2
Cir. 1994).
B.
The ALJ’s Determination
At Step 1, the ALJ found that Plaintiff has not engaged in substantial gainful activity
since the application date. (Tr. 19). At Step 2, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff has the
following severe impairments: (1) arthritis/degenerative joint disease; (2) anxiety; (3)
depression; and (4) vision problems. (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. 22-23). Specifically, the ALJ found that
Plaintiff’s anxiety and depression do not meet or equal Listing 12.04 (affective disorders)
or Listing 12.06 (anxiety-related disorders) because she manages many activities
associated with daily living and has not experienced any episodes of decompensation of
extended duration. (Id.).
At Step 4, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff has the residual functional capacity
(“RFC”) to perform light work, as defined in 20 C.F.R. § 416.967(b), with the following
limitations:
The claimant is able to lift and carry 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds
frequently and she is able to stand/walk up to six hours and sit at least six
hours in an 8-hour workday. She is able to climb ramps and stairs, stoop,
kneel, crouch and crawl occasionally; but she should not climb ladders, ropes
or scaffolds. She is moderately limited with regard to far visual acuity. She
should avoid concentrated exposure to hot and cold temperature extremes,
wetness, humidity and vibration; and she should avoid hazards, such as
dangerous machinery and unprotected heights. She is able to understand
and remember simple instructions; and she is able to understand, remember
and complete simple one-and-two-step instructions and able to sustain focus
for simple and repetitive tasks for two-hours segments through an 8-hour
workday for a full workweek. She is able to accept supervision adequately
3
in a stable work environment, with minimal interactions with the public; and
she is able to adjust to situations and changes in a stable work environment
with reasonable support.
(Tr. 23). The ALJ further noted that Plaintiff has no past relevant work. (Tr. 25).
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. 25-26). 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 light work as a
laundry worker, housekeeper and sorter, citing to a significant number of jobs in Kentucky
and the national economy. (Id.). 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.).
C.
Plaintiff’s Arguments
Plaintiff advances two arguments on appeal. (Doc. # 10-1). First, Plaintiff argues
that the ALJ failed to consider the effects of her obesity. Second, Plaintiff generally
complains that the ALJ’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence. Each of these
arguments will be addressed in turn.
1.
The ALJ’s Consideration of Plaintiff’s Obesity
Social Security Ruling 02-1p “provide[s] guidance on SSA policy concerning the
evaluation of obesity in disability claims.” See 2000 WL 628049, at *1 (Sept. 12, 2002).
While it “‘does not mandate a particular mode of analysis,’” it does instruct the ALJ “to
4
consider the claimant’s obesity, in combination with other impairments, at all stages of the
sequential evaluation.” Nejat v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 359 F. App’x 574, 577 (6th Cir. 2009)
(quoting Bledsoe v. Barnhart, 165 F. App’x 408, 411-12 (6th Cir. 2006)).
Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ failed to consider the effects of her obesity at Steps 2,
3 and 4 of the analysis. (Doc. # 10-1 at 10). Specifically, she claims that the ALJ failed to
determine: (1) whether her obesity constitutes a severe impairment; (2) whether her obesity
in combination with other impairments meets or equals a listing in the Listing of
Impairments; and (3) the impact of her obesity on the RFC assessment. (Id.). Thus, the
Court must consider the extent to which the ALJ considered Plaintiff’s obesity at each of
these steps.
a.
Step 2–The Severity of the Impairment
The second step in the disability evaluation process requires the ALJ to consider the
medical severity of the claimant’s impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii); Soc. Sec.
Rul. 96-3p, 1996 WL 374181 at *1 (July 2, 1996). An impairment is considered severe if
it “significantly limits an individual’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work
activities,” which are defined as “those abilities and aptitudes necessary to do most jobs.”
20 C.F.R. § 404.1521(b). Basic work activities include the following: (1) physical functions
such as walking, standing, sitting, lifting, pushing, pulling, reaching, carrying, or handling;
(2) capacities for hearing, seeing and speaking; (3) understanding, carrying out and
remembering simple instructions; (4) use of judgment; (5) responding appropriately to
supervision, co-workers and usual work situations; and (6) dealing with changes in a
routine work setting. Id.
5
Because the Sixth Circuit has interpreted “the step two severity regulation as a ‘de
minimis hurdle’ in the disability determination process,” meant to screen out totally frivolous
claims, the severity of the impairment is “liberally construed in favor of the claimant” at this
step in the analysis. Higgs v. Bowen, 880 F.2d 860, 862 (6th Cir. 1988) (citations omitted);
Farris v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 773 F.2d 85, 89 (6th Cir. 1985); Griffeth v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 217 Fed. Appx. 425, 428 (6th Cir. 2007). “[A]n impairment can be
considered not severe only if it is a slight abnormality that minimally affects work ability
regardless of age, education and experience.” Higgs, 880 F.2d at 862 (citing Farris, 773
F.2d at 90).
If the ALJ finds that at least one of the claimant’s alleged impairments is severe in
nature, the claim survives the step two screening process. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4).
Because the Regulations instruct the ALJ to consider both severe and non-severe
impairments in the remaining steps of the disability determination analysis, any impairment
erroneously labeled as “non-severe” will not be ignored altogether.
20 C.F.R. §
404.1545(a)(2). For this reason, the Sixth Circuit has consistently held that an ALJ does
not commit reversible error when he or she decides that some of claimant’s impairments
are not severe, but finds that other impairments are severe and proceeds with his or her
analysis. See, e.g., Maziarz v. Sec’y Health & Human Serv., 837 F.2d 240, 244 (6th Cir.
1987) (“Since the Secretary properly could consider claimant’s cervical condition in
determining whether claimant retained sufficient residual functional capacity to allow him
to perform substantial gainful activity, the Secretary’s failure to find that claimant’s cervical
condition constituted a severe impairment could not constitute reversible error.”).
6
At Step 2, the ALJ briefly noted that Plaintiff “is 5'1" tall and weighs 200 pounds,” but
did not decide whether her obesity was a severe impairment. (Tr. 19). Plaintiff insists that
her obesity should have been classified as such. However, there is relatively little medical
evidence in the record about Plaintiff’s obesity. Her medical records occasionally refer to
her weight and stature, characterizing her as “obese,” “overweight,” and “well-nourished,”
but they do not suggest that she is unable to perform basic work activities. (Tr. 179, 183,
231-32, 375 and 497). To the contrary, Plaintiff’s medical records reflect that she is able
to ambulate effectively and has a good range of motion. (Tr. 187 and 274). Thus, there
is insufficient evidence to establish that Plaintiff’s obesity is a severe impairment.
Alternatively, even if the ALJ did err in failing to identify Plaintiff’s obesity as a severe
impairment, such error is harmless. The ALJ found that Plaintiff has several other severe
impairments, including arthritis/degenerative joint disease, anxiety, depression and vision
problems. (Tr. 19). Having determined that Plaintiff suffers from severe impairments, the
ALJ had to consider both severe and non-severe impairments, including obesity, in
completing the disability determination analysis. Accordingly, the Court finds no error in
the ALJ’s Step 2 analysis.
b.
Step 3–The Listing of Impairments
The third step in the disability evaluation process requires the ALJ to consider the
medical severity of the claimant’s impairment. See 20 C.F.R. 404.1520(a)(4)(iii),
416.920(a)(4)(iii). Specifically, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant’s impairment
meets or equals one of the listings in the Listing of Impairments, which “describe[ ] 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
7
or work experience.” 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1; see also 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 of Soc. Sec., 424 F. App’x 411, 414 (6th Cir. 2011).1
The ALJ “need not discuss listings that the applicant clearly does not meet.” Sheeks
v. Comm’r Soc. Sec., 544 F. App’x 639, 641 (6th Cir. 2013). However, if the record
“‘raise[s] a substantial question as to whether [the claimant] could qualify as disabled’ under
a listing, the ALJ should discuss that listing.” Id. (quoting Abbott v. Sullivan, 905 F.2d 918,
925 (6th Cir. 1990)). The ALJ must “actually evaluate the evidence, compare it to the
applicable Listings, and give an explained conclusion, in order to facilitate meaningful
review.” Reynolds, 424 F. App’x at 416.
If the ALJ “offers nothing to support his conclusions at step three, a reviewing court
cannot tell whether the ALJ’s decision is based on substantial evidence,” and thus, it cannot
provide meaningful judicial review. James v. Colvin, Civ. A. No. 3:11-CV-640-S. 2013 WL
4096977, at *8 (W.D. Ky. Aug. 13, 2013). Failure to conduct a reasoned analysis at Step
3 may constitute reversible error. See Reynolds, 424 F. App’x at 416 (vacating and
remanding the case “for a discussion of the evidence and an explanation of reasoning
supporting the determination that [the claimant’s] severe impairments do not meet or
medically equal a listed impairment”) (internal quotations omitted); James, 2013 WL
4096977, at *8 (“Because he failed to explain which Listing Impairment he considered,
1) The ALJ may also find that the claimant is per se 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).
8
evidence he relied upon and which he rejected, the ALJ’s error was not harmless.”).
Obesity has been deleted from the Listing of Impairments. Soc. Sec. Rul. 02-1p,
2000 WL 628049, at *1. However, ALJs should still consider “the combined effects of
obesity with other impairments, [which] can be greater than the effects of each of the
impairments considered separately.” Id. To that end, the Agency “added paragraphs to
the prefaces of the musculoskeletal, respiratory, and cardiovascular body system listings
that provide guidance about the potential effects obesity has in causing or contributing to
impairments in those body systems.” Id. For example, Listing 1.00Q states that:
[o]besity is a medically determinable impairment that is often associated with
disturbance of the musculoskeletal system, and disturbance of this system
can be a major cause of disability in individuals with obesity. The combined
effects fo obesity with musculoskeletal impairments can be greater than the
effects of each of the impairments considered separately. Therefore, when
determining whether an individual with obesity has a listing-level impairment
or combination of impairments, and when assessing a claim at other steps
of the sequential evaluation process, including when assessing an
individual’s residual functional capacity, adjudicators must consider any
additional and cumulative effects of obesity.
At Step 3, the ALJ considered only whether Plaintiff meets Listing 12.04 (affective
disorders) or Listing 12.06 (anxiety-related disorders). (Tr. 22-23). She compared these
Listings to the evidence in the record, making sure to note that Plaintiff manages many
activities of daily living and has had no extended episodes of decompensation while on
medication. (Id.). She then concluded that Plaintiff does not meet either of these Listings.
(Id.).
This aspect of the ALJ’s Step 3 analysis not only satisfies the procedural
requirements set forth above, it is also supported by substantial evidence.
That being said, the Court submits that the ALJ should have discussed Listing 1.00
(musculoskeletal system), its applicable subparts and any additional or cumulative effects
9
of Plaintiff’s obesity. The ALJ classified Plaintiff’s arthritis as a severe impairment at Step
2. (Tr. 19). Having parsed through the volume of medical records addressing Plaintiff’s
arthritis, the Court finds that there is a substantial question as to whether Plaintiff qualifies
as disabled under one of these listings.
However, the ALJ does not identify any
musculoskeletal listings for consideration, nor does she review the evidence and explain
why Plaintiff does not meet any of these listings. Because the ALJ did not conduct such
an analysis, she also missed the opportunity to consider any additional and cumulative
effects of Plaintiff’s obesity on her arthritis. The Step 3 analysis contains only one brief
mention of Plaintiff’s musculoskeletal exam results from 2014, which “revealed normal
range of motion, muscle strength, and stability in all extremities with no pain.” (Tr. 23).
This is not sufficient to provide meaningful judicial review.
While it is tempting to look at the record and predict how the ALJ would have
analyzed these listings based on the evidence in the administrative record, the Court
cannot do so without overstepping the bounds of its review. It is the Court’s task to
consider whether the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, not to fill in any
blanks left by the ALJ. See Cutlip, 25 F.3d at 286. Moreover, “correction of such an error
is not merely a formalistic matter of procedure, for it is possible that the evidence [the
claimant] put forth could meet this listing.” Reynolds, 424 F. App’x at 415. For these
reasons, the Court must reverse and remand the case.2
2) The Court recognizes that Plaintiff did not bring this precise issue to the Court’s attention. She
argued only that the ALJ failed to consider her obesity at Step 3, not that she failed to address her
arthritis at Step 3. However, given the interplay between arthritis and obesity, and the importance
of Step 3 in the disability determination process, the Court felt it necessary to address this issue
in full.
10
c.
Step 4–The Residual Functional Capacity Assessment
In Reynolds, the court observed that “[a]rguments relating to the ALJ’s Step Four
analysis need not be reached because the ALJ must revisit his Step Three analysis.” 424
F. App’x at 417. “[S]hould the ALJ ultimately conclude that [the claimant’s] impairments still
do not meet or equal a Listed Impairment at Step Three, he should then assess her
residual functional capacity, considering all impairments–including ones that are not
severe–and appropriately explain the weight given to each physician’s opinion.” Id. The
same reasoning applies to this case. Accordingly, the Court will delve no deeper into the
ALJ’s Step 4 analysis.
2.
Plaintiff’s “Catch-All” Argument
“Issues adverted to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at
developed argumentation, are deemed waived. It is not sufficient for a party to mention a
possible argument in the most skeletal way, leaving the court to put flesh on its bones.”
McPherson v. Kelsey, 125 F.3d 989, 995-96 (6th Cir. 1997).
Plaintiff also proclaims that the ALJ’s finding of “not disabled” is not supported by
substantial evidence. (Doc. # 10-1 at 10-11). However, she does not give any content to
this thesis. She does not identify any evidence that the ALJ improperly weighed, nor does
she explain why the ALJ’s reasoning was faulty. Because Plaintiff has not sufficiently
developed any other arguments, the Court deems them waived.
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
(1)
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 10) is hereby GRANTED;
11
(2)
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 11) is hereby DENIED;
(3)
This action is hereby REMANDED to the Commissioner under sentence four
of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) with instructions to adequately address whether Plaintiff’s arthritis
and obesity meet one of the listings in the Listing of Impairments at Step 3, consistent with
this Memorandum Opinion and Order. The ALJ shall then review her Step 4 and Step 5
analysis, if impacted by her revised Step 3 analysis; and
(4)
A Judgment will be entered contemporaneously herewith.
This 1st day of April, 2016.
G:\DATA\SocialSecurity\MOOs\London\15-104 Combs MOO.wpd
12
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?