Glotfelty v. Astrue

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM signed by Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm on 1/30/2012. (bf2, Deputy Clerk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
CHAMBERS OF
PAUL W. GRIMM
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

101 W. LOMBARD STREET
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21201
[phone]
[phone] FAX

January 30, 2012
Stephen F. Shea, Esq.
Elkind & Shea
801 Roeder Road, Suite 550
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Alex Gordon, AUSA
36 S. Charles Street
4th Floor
Baltimore, MD 21201
Re: Jennifer Glotfelty v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner
of Social Security, PWG-10-250
Dear Counsel:
Pending before this Court, by the parties’ consent, are
Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment concerning the Commissioner’s
decision denying Ms. Jennifer Glotfelty’s claim for Supplemental
Security Income (“SSI”). (ECF Nos. 8, 11, 14).
This Court must
uphold the Commissioner’s decision if it is supported by
substantial evidence and if proper legal standards were
employed. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 589
(4th Cir. 1996); Coffman v. Bowen, 829 F.2d 514, 517 (4th Cir.
1987). A hearing is unnecessary. Local Rule 105.6.
For the
reasons that follow, this Court GRANTS the Commissioner’s Motion
and DENIES the Plaintiff’s Motion.
Jennifer Glotfelty (sometimes referred to as “Claimant” or
“Ms. Glotfelty”) applied for SSI on September 27, 2006, alleging
that she was disabled since June 1, 2006, due to obsessive
compulsive
disorder
(“OCD”),
depression,
and
an
anxiety
disorder. (Tr. 11, 129-132,144). Her claim was denied initially
and upon reconsideration. (Tr. 83-85, 89-90). After a hearing
held before an Administrative Law Judge(“ALJ”), the Honorable J.
E. Sullivan, on January 26, 2009, the ALJ denied Ms. Glotfelty’s
claim and concluded in a decision dated July 8, 2009, that she
suffered from obesity, a major depressive disorder, and
obsessive compulsive disorder (“OCD”) and that they were
“severe” impairments, as defined in the Regulations.
The ALJ

also found that these impairments did not meet or equal any of
the Listing of Impairments(“LOI”).
The ALJ next found Ms.
Glotfelty retained the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to
perform work at all exertional levels except that she had
certain non-exertional limitations.
Next, the ALJ found that
she was precluded from performing any past relevant work
(“PRW”).
After receiving testimony from a vocational expert
(“VE”), and based on her age and RFC, the ALJ found that there
were jobs available in the national and local economies in
substantial numbers that Claimant could perform. Accordingly,
the ALJ found Claimant was not disabled. (Tr. 11-22). On
December 3, 2009, the Appeals Council denied Claimant’s request
for review, making her case ready for judicial review. (Tr. 14).
Claimant argues that the ALJ erred in determining her RFC
and in presenting hypotheticals to the VE by failing to consider
all of her mental limitations. See Plaintiff’s Memorandum, pp.
3-14.
After review of the entire record, in particular the
transcript of the administrative hearing, I disagree.
First,
the ALJ’s decision documented his findings with reference to 20
CFR §416.920a which requires ALJ’s to follow a special technique
when mental impairments are alleged. (Tr. 14-15). The ALJ also
discussed all of the relevant medical opinions in his decision
and adequately discussed the basis for his decision in
determining Ms. Glotfelty’s mental RFC. (Tr. 14-22).
For example, in the four areas of functioning the ALJ found that
Ms. Glotfelty had “mild” restrictions in her activities of daily
living,
“moderate
”limitations
in
maintaining
social
functioning,
“moderate”
difficulties
in
concentration,
persistence and pace, and found that she experienced no episodes
of decompensation of extended duration. (Tr. 14). The ALJ then
found Ms. Glotfelty’s RFC was as follows:
“The Claimant has the residual functional capacity to
perform the a full range of work at all exertion
levels but with the following mental limitations: she
is able to perform simple (e.g., one to five step),
routine and repetitive tasks, performed in a low
stress work environment (i.e., free from fast paced
production);
and
should
have
only
occasional
interaction with the public.” (Tr. 15).
In presenting hypotheticals to the VE the ALJ properly
considered the limitations regarding Ms. Glotfelty’s mental
2

limitations1. This type of analysis is exactly what is required
by the Regulations and Social Security Rulings (“SSR”) 85-16 and
96-8p and the ALJ’s findings were consistent with the state
agency physician’s findings. (Tr. 294). For example, Dr. Linda
Payne stated that Claimant was capable of completing daily
living functions within the constraints of her mental and
cognitive status, and that Ms. Glotfelty appeared to have the
ability to interact and relate with others socially2. (Tr. 300).
In sum, the hypotheticals presented to the VE with the
limitations the ALJ described, were supported by substantial
evidence. See SSR 96-8p (1996 WL 374184 *7 (S.S.A)).

The ALJ documented his specific findings as to the degree
of limitation in each of the four areas of functioning described
in paragraph(c) of §416.920a.(Tr. 14). The RFC assessment must
always consider and address medical source opinions. The ALJ’s
finding regarding Ms. Glotfelty’s RFC reflected the work related
activities resulting from the mental impairment described in the
mental RFC assessment.
SSR 85-16 Residual Functional Capacity
for Mental Impairments (1985 WL 56855, *2) (S.S.A.)). According
to Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 96-8p, the mental activities
required by competitive, remunerative, unskilled work include:
1

The ALJ presented hypotheticals to the VE which included the following
limitations:
Q. …[S]he is able to perform simple, and by that, I mean one to
five step routine and repetitive tasks, in a low stress work
environment, and I am going to define that as free from fast
paced production with no interaction with the public and limited
interaction with co-workers and supervisors. (Tr. 76-77).
2
On April 5, 2007, Dr. Linda Payne reviewed Ms. Glotfelty’s records. Dr.
Payne stated that Claimant was “moderately” limited in her abilities to:
1) perform activities within a schedule, maintain regular
attendance, and be punctual within customary tolerances;
2) work in coordination with or proximity of others without being
distracted by them;
3) complete a normal work-day without interruptions from
psychologically based symptoms and to perform at a consistent
pace without an unreasonable number and length of rest periods;
4) interact appropriately with the general public;
5) maintain socially appropriate behavior and adhere to basic standards
of neatness and cleanliness;
6) respond appropriately to changes in the work setting; and;
7) set realistic goals or make plans independently of others.
(Tr. 299).

3

Understanding, remembering and carrying out simple
instructions.
Making judgments that are commensurate with the
functions of unskilled work-i.e., simple work related
decisions.
Responding appropriately to supervision, coworkers and
usual work situations dealing with changes in the work
setting.
(SSR 96-8p 1996 WL 374184 at *6)(Emphasis added).
The limitations relevant to unskilled work were all
discussed by the ALJ in his decision, and more importantly, were
included in the hypotheticals presented to the VE and are
consistent with the findings of Dr. Payne.
In response to the
hypotheticals, the VE stated work existed for such an individual
such as Claimant who had the non-exertional limitations referred
to in Exhibit 6-F.(Tr. 298-301).
In sum, the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial
evidence and must be affirmed.
Thus, for the reasons given,
this Court GRANTS the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment
and DENIES Claimant’s Motion. A separate Order shall issue.

_________/s/____________
Paul W. Grimm
United States Magistrate Judge

4