Braxton v. Astrue

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm on 7/5/11. (hmls, 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

July 5, 2011
Judith L. Mathis, Esq.
Mathis & Mathis, PC
2500 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 320
Arlington, VA 22207
Alex S. Gordon, AUSA
36 South Charles Street
4th Floor
Baltimore, MD 21201
Re: William Braxton v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of
Social Security, PWG-10-489
Dear Counsel:
Pending before the undersigned, by the parties’ consent, are
Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment concerning the Commissioner’s
decision denying Mr. Braxton’s claims for Disability Insurance
Benefits (“DIB”) and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”).(ECF Nos.
6,12,20). Plaintiff also filed a Response to Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 21). 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 DENIES the Commissioner’s Motion and GRANTS the Plaintiff’s
Alternative Motion for Remand.
Mr. Braxton (“Claimant”) filed applications for DIB and SSI
on February 28, 2007, alleging that he was disabled due to diabetes
mellitus, essential hypertension, two hernias, high cholesterol,
and arthritis pain in his knees. (Tr. 111-131, 145). His claims
were denied initially and upon reconsideration. (Tr. 68-72). A
hearing was held before the Honorable Robert W. Young,
Administrative Law Judge, (“ALJ”) on April 29, 2009.
The ALJ
denied Mr. Braxton’s claims in a decision dated August 5, 2009,
concluding at step one of the sequential evaluation that Claimant
had not engaged in substantial gainful activity (“SGA”) since his
alleged onset date.
At step two the ALJ found that Claimant’s
diabetes mellitus, essential hypertension and hernias all were

“severe” impairments, but that they did not meet or medically equal
a Listing at step three.
At step four, the ALJ found Claimant
retained the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform the
full range of medium work. The ALJ also determined, based on Mr.
Braxton’s RFC, that he was not precluded from performing his past
relevant work (“PRW”) as a housekeeper. (Tr. 17). Accordingly, the
ALJ found that Mr. Braxton was not disabled.(Tr. 13-18).
On
November 24, 2009, the Appeals Council denied Mr. Braxton’s request
for review, making his case ready for judicial review. (Tr. 3-6).
Mr. Braxton presents several arguments in support of his
contention that the Commissioner’s final decision should be
reversed or, in the alternative, remanded. For the reasons that
follow, I find the ALJ’s decision is not supported by substantial
evidence and am remanding the case.
Claimant’s primary argument is that that the ALJ erred at step
two. Specifically, he contends that the ALJ failed to discuss all
of the relevant medical evidence regarding the osteoarthritis in
his knees and his peripheral neuropathy in determining all of his
“severe” impairments. At step two, the ALJ found:
“[T]he claimant has the following severe impairments
diabetes
mellitus,
essential
hypertension
and
hernias.(Finding of Fact No. 3, Tr. 14)
The Commissioner acknowledges that Claimant was diagnosed and
treated for osteoarthritis in his knees and peripheral neuropathy,
but argues that the ALJ declined --albeit by inference -- to find
these conditions constituted “severe” impairments. The Commissioner
devoted four pages of discussion in his Memorandum to attempting to
explain why the ALJ could have found these two alleged impairments
were not “severe”. However, this is an after the fact
rationalization of what the ALJ could have --but did not-- find.
After careful review of the record, and the ALJ’s decision, it is
evident that the ALJ’s discussion and analysis failed to recognize
that there were additional impairments diagnosed and the evidence
regarding the extent of limitations resulting from those impairments
was not properly analyzed. This error warrants a remand.
At least two medical sources opined that Mr. Braxton suffered
from pain in his knees and from peripheral neuropathy. For example,
Dr. Bailey stated that Mr. Braxton had bilateral lower extremity
pain status post arthroscopy of the left knee. (Tr. 167). Dr. Desai
noted the joint pain was localized in his knee, and Dr. Alexander
of
the Center for Minimally Invasive Surgery diagnosed
osteoarthritis of the left knee and prescribed a knee brace for
Claimant.(Tr. 278, 311).
With respect to Claimant’s peripheral neuropathy, Dr. Enzo
2

Leone stated that neurologic examination revealed Class C findings
consisting of cold feet and parasthesis, including tingling and
shooting sensations in the toes and feet. Additionally, Dr. Leone
found that there was clinically significant peripheral neuropathy
of Claimant’s lower extremities. See Exhibit 1F (Tr. 161, 257, 268,
270). This objective evidence supports Claimant’s allegations that
his knee arthritis and neuropathy impacted his ability to stand and
walk, but it was not discussed by the ALJ at step two of his
decision. This was improper in light of SSR 96-8p. Errors such as
those which occurred at step two in this case inevitably infect the
ALJ’s analysis at the subsequent steps. Therefore, I am unable to
determine without speculation whether the ALJ considered or simply
overlooked the additional impairments at any step of the sequential
evaluation. The Court cannot determine whether findings are
supported by substantial evidence unless the agency clearly
indicates the weight given all the relevant evidence. Gordon v.
Schweiker, 725 F.2d 231 (4th Cir. 1984) see also SSR 96-8p.
Thus, for the reasons given, this Court GRANTS Mr. Braxton’s
Alternative Motion for Remand and DENIES the Commissioner’s Motion
for Summary Judgment. A separate Order shall issue.

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

3