SPAULDING v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER
Filing
20
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION re 13 Social Security Statement of Errors/Fact Sheet. By MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN C. NIVISON. (CWP)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
CHARLES R. SPAULDING, JR.,
Plaintiff
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 1:14-cv-00135-JCN
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION1
Plaintiff Charles R. Spaulding, Jr. applied for disability benefits under Title II and Title
XVI of the Social Security Act.
Defendant, the Social Security Administration Acting
Commissioner, found that Plaintiff has severe impairments, but retains the functional capacity to
perform substantial gainful activity. Defendant, therefore, denied Plaintiff’s request for disability
benefits.
As explained below, following a review of the record, and after consideration of the parties’
written and oral arguments, the Court vacates and remands the administrative decision.
THE ADMINISTRATIVE FINDINGS
The ALJ found that Plaintiff has severe impairments of “bilateral inguinal hernias status
post-surgical repair with continuing pain, pancreatitis, and status post left carpal tunnel release”
(ALJ Decision at 4, ¶ 3), which impairments restrict Plaintiff’s work capacity to a subset of lightexertion work, subject to some postural and manipulative limitations (Id. at 5-6, ¶ 5). Based on
1
The parties have filed a consent authorizing the undersigned to conduct any and all proceedings and enter a final
order and judgment in this matter.
his findings and the testimony of a vocational expert regarding the existence of work that would
accommodate the limitations identified by the ALJ, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff is not disabled
because he retains the capacity to perform his past relevant work (step 4). Alternatively, the ALJ
determined that Plaintiff is not disabled because he can transition to other work that exists in
substantial numbers in the national economy (step 5). (Id. at 10-11, ¶¶ 6-7.)
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in his assessment of Plaintiff’s residual functional
capacity (RFC) because he failed to account for the occupational limitations that result from
chronic diarrhea, secondary to pancreatitis. (Statement of Errors at 2-5.) Defendant challenges
Plaintiff’s premise that the ALJ found that diarrhea imposes an additional restriction on Plaintiff’s
work capacity. According to Defendant, the record contains substantial evidence to support the
ALJ’s finding “that Plaintiff’s alleged need to use the bathroom five to six times per day due to
diarrhea was not fully credible.” (Response at 2, ECF No. 14 (emphasis added).) According to
Defendant, the ALJ effectively concluded that “‘this symptom’ did not warrant any greater
restriction than to a limited range of exertionally light work.” (Id. at 3, citing R. 31-32, 34.)
A. Standard of Review
The Court must affirm the administrative decision provided that the ALJ applied the correct
legal standard, and provided that the decision is supported by substantial evidence, even if the
record contains evidence that would support an alternative outcome. Manso-Pizarro v. Sec’y of
HHS, 76 F.3d 15, 16 (1st Cir. 1996) (per curiam); Rodriguez Pagan v. Sec’y of HHS, 819 F.2d 1,
3 (1st Cir. 1987). Substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate
to support a finding. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971); Rodriguez v. Sec’y of HHS,
647 F.2d 218, 222 (1st Cir. 1981). “The ALJ’s findings of fact are conclusive when supported by
2
substantial evidence, but they are not conclusive when derived by ignoring evidence, misapplying
the law, or judging matters entrusted to experts.” Nguyen v. Chater, 172 F.3d 31, 35 (1st Cir.
1999).
B. Analysis
As part of his step 2 findings, the ALJ identified pancreatitis as a severe impairment. A
condition is “severe” if it has more than a minimal effect on an individual’s ability to work.
McDonald v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 795 F.2d 1118, 1123 (1st Cir. 1986). Based on his
finding, the ALJ concluded that pancreatitis results in more than a minimal limitation on Plaintiff’s
ability to perform work activity. The ALJ, however, did not explain in his step 2 discussion which
symptoms of pancreatitis were severe.
Prior to discussion of Plaintiff’s claim at step 4 and step 5, the ALJ assessed Plaintiff’s
RFC. Initially, the ALJ had to determine whether the record contained evidence of a medical
impairment that could be expected to produce Plaintiff’s subjective complaints of diarrhea
symptoms. The ALJ found pancreatitis to be a medical impairment capable of producing the
symptoms. (ALJ Decision at 7.) As the ALJ explained, the finding necessitated an evaluation of
“the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the claimant’s symptoms to determine the extent
to which they limit the claimant’s functioning.” (Id. at 6.) Pursuant to Defendant’s regulations,
the ALJ must consider multiple sources of evidence to determine the credibility of a Plaintiff’s
report of symptoms, including “medical history, the medical signs and laboratory findings and
statements about how your symptoms affect you.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529, 416.929.
The ALJ first addressed Plaintiff’s complaints of abdominal pain. When addressing the
issue of abdominal pain, the ALJ pointed to Plaintiff’s bilateral inguinal hernia repair to explain
Plaintiff’s need to avoid heavy lifting activity. (ALJ Decision at 7.) According to the ALJ, the
3
pain and tenderness precluded work “in excess of the light exertional level.” (Id.) The ALJ later
turned to the issue of diarrhea when discussing pancreatitis. In a brief discussion, the ALJ stated:
The record does document complaints of chronic diarrhea with up to 5 or 6 bowel
movements per day (Exhibit 18F). I do not find that this symptom warrants any
restriction in the residual functional capacity beyond those identified above. I note
that the opinion statement from his treating physician does not impose any
restrictions related to the need to use the restroom on a more frequent than normal
basis.
(Id. at 8.) In essence, the ALJ concluded that a restriction to light exertion would resolve any
limitation resulting from pancreatitis and any related diarrhea, but the ALJ did not identify how
the pancreatitis limited Plaintiff.
The merit of the ALJ’s conclusion is difficult to assess. Where a treating source has not
identified a limitation that is attributable to the condition, one could conceivably infer that a
claimant’s subjective complaints regarding the effect of the pancreatitis are not credible. In this
case, however, because the ALJ found pancreatitis to be a severe impairment at step 2, yet failed
to identify the pancreatitis-related limitation (other than reference to diarrhea), failed to explain
how light-duty work would address any symptoms of pancreatitis, and failed to cite a supporting
expert opinion that considered the effects of the pancreatitis, the findings of the ALJ and the
medical evidence on which he relied do not support the inference that Plaintiff’s complaints related
to the pancreatitis are not credible. The ALJ, therefore, was required to determine the extent of
the limitation that is related to Plaintiff’s pancreatitis, and explain how the restriction to light
exertion would successfully address the limitation.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing analysis, the Court vacates the administration decision and remands
the matter for further proceedings.
4
/s/ John C. Nivison
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Dated this 15th day of January, 2015.
5
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?