Brown v. Astrue

Filing 19

OPINION. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie A Gallagher on 1-24-13. (dass, Deputy Clerk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
CHAMBERS OF
STEPHANIE A. GALLAGHER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

101 WEST LOMBARD STREET
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21201
[phone]
Fax [phone]

January 24, 2013

LETTER TO COUNSEL:
RE:

James Edmondson Brown v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration;
Civil No. SAG-12-0174

Dear Counsel:
On January 18, 2012, the Plaintiff, James Edmondson Brown, petitioned this Court to
review the Social Security Administration’s final decision to deny his claim for Disability
Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. (ECF No. 1). I have considered the
parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 16, 18). I find that no hearing is
necessary. Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2011). This Court must uphold the decision of the agency
if it is supported by substantial evidence and if the agency employed proper legal standards. 42
U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3); see Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir. 1996). Under that
standard, I will grant the Commissioner’s motion and deny Plaintiff’s motion. This letter
explains my rationale.
Mr. Brown filed his claims in July, 2008, alleging disability beginning on April 17, 2007.
(Tr. 105-14). His claim was denied initially on January 5, 2009, and on reconsideration on April
28, 2009. (Tr. 57-61, 66-69). A hearing was held on January 11, 2010 before an Administrative
Law Judge (“ALJ”). (Tr. 28-51). Following the hearing, on March 18, 2010, the ALJ
determined that Mr. Brown was not disabled during the relevant time frame. (Tr. 14-27). The
Appeals Council denied Mr. Brown’s request for review, (Tr. 1-5), so the ALJ’s decision
constitutes the final, reviewable decision of the agency.
The ALJ found that Mr. Brown suffered from the severe impairments of ischemia,
hypertension, and a mood disorder. (Tr. 19). Despite these impairments, the ALJ found that Mr.
Brown retained the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to:
perform less than a full range of light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) and
416.967(b). The claimant can lift or carry twenty pounds occasionally and ten
pounds frequently, stand and walk two hours in an eight hour workday, and sit for
six hours. He can perform jobs that require only occasional balancing and
climbing of stairs and no exposure to dangerous machinery. The claimant is able
to understand, remember and execute detailed instructions. He can adequately
sustain a forty hour work week, concentrate and pay attention, work with others

James Edmondson Brown v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration
Civil No. SAG-12-0174
January 24, 2013
Page 2
without distracting them, perform work within a schedule, be on time, meet
production standards, and accept instructions and criticism from his boss.
(Tr. 22). After considering the testimony of a vocational expert (“VE”), the ALJ determined that
Mr. Brown could perform jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy, and that
he was therefore not disabled during the relevant time frame. (Tr. 25-26).
Mr. Brown argues on appeal that the ALJ should have found his degenerative disc
disease to be a severe impairment at Step Two. His argument lacks merit. An impairment is
considered “severe” if it significantly limits the claimant’s ability to work. See 20 C.F.R. §
404.1521(a). The claimant bears the burden of proving that his impairment is severe. See
Johnson v. Astrue, Civil Action No. PWG-10-3139, 2012 WL 203397, at *2 (D. Md. Jan. 23,
2012) (citing Pass v. Chater, 65 F.3d 1200, 1203 (4th Cir. 1995)). In this case, Mr. Brown has
not directed this Court to, and this Court has been unable to find, any medical evidence
indicating that his back pain caused significant limitations in his ability to perform work within
his RFC, which already included physical restriction to “less than a full range of light work.” As
the ALJ noted in her Step Two analysis, Mr. Brown did not mention back pain during his
testimony at his hearing, even when asked open-ended questions about the issues limiting his
ability to work. (Tr. 20, 34-35, 38-39). The medical evidence in the record indicates that Mr.
Brown’s back pain was diminished with treatment, making his overall pain level only a three or
four on a scale of one to ten. (Tr. 499). The ALJ’s statement that “[t]here are no significant
functional limitations related to the claimant’s alleged lower back pain” (Tr. 20) is supported by
medical examinations showing normal lumbar lordosis, normal deep tendon reflexes, full
strength, no atrophy, and normal tone. (Tr. 499-500, 508-09, 524). Moreover, in assessing the
credibility of Mr. Brown’s complaints of pain, the ALJ noted that his activities of daily living
belie his reported limitations from his symptoms. (Tr. 24). Accordingly, the ALJ did not err by
failing to find that Mr. Brown’s degenerative disc disease constituted a severe impairment.
Moreover, even if I were to agree that the ALJ erred in his evaluation of Mr. Brown’s
degenerative disc disease at Step Two, such error would be harmless. Because Mr. Brown made
the threshold showing that he had other physical and mental severe impairments, the ALJ
continued with the sequential evaluation process and considered all of the impairments, both
severe and nonsevere, that significantly impacted Mr. Brown’s ability to work. See 20 C.F.R. §
404.1523. Accordingly, I find no basis for remand.
For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 16)
will be DENIED and the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 18) will be
GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.

James Edmondson Brown v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration
Civil No. SAG-12-0174
January 24, 2013
Page 3
Despite the informal nature of this letter, it should be flagged as an opinion.
implementing Order follows.
Sincerely yours,
/s/
Stephanie A. Gallagher
United States Magistrate Judge

An