Wright v. Colvin

Filing 22

ORDER denying 18 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 20 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Mark Coulson on 12/22/2014. (ca2s, Deputy Clerk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
CHAMBERS OF
J. Mark Coulson
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

December 22, 2014
LETTER TO COUNSEL
RE:

James Henry Wright v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration;
Civil No. JMC-13-CV-3839

Dear Counsel:
On December 20, 2013, Plaintiff James Henry Wright (“Mr. Wright”) petitioned this
Court to review the Social Security Administration’s final decision to deny his claims for
Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. (ECF No. 1). I have
considered the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment and Plaintiff’s reply memorandum.
(ECF Nos. 18, 20 & 21). I find that no hearing is necessary. See Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2014).
This Court must uphold the decision of the agency if it is supported by substantial evidence and
if the agency employed proper legal standards. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3); 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. Wright filed claims for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and Supplemental
Security Income (“SSI”) on November 27, 2009. (Tr. 129-137). He alleged a disability onset
date of October 27, 2009. (Tr. 129, 133). His claims were denied initially and on
reconsideration. (Tr. 61-67). A hearing was held on May 11, 2012, before an Administrative
Law Judge (“ALJ”). (Tr. 32). Following the hearing, the ALJ determined that Mr. Wright was
not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act during the relevant time frame.
(Tr.13-26). The Appeals Council denied Mr. Wright’s request for review, (Tr.1-6), so the ALJ’s
decision constitutes the final, reviewable decision of the agency.
The ALJ found that Mr. Wright suffered from the severe impairments of thrombotic
thrombocytopenic purpura (Moschowitz Syndrome); multiple sclerosis; diabetes; obesity; and
depression. (Tr. 15). Despite these impairments, the ALJ determined that Mr. Wright retained
the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to:
Perform sedentary work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(a) and 416.67(a) except
occasional use of ramps and climbing stairs, but never climbing ladders, ropes or
scaffolds; occasional balancing, stopping, kneeling, crouching, and crawling;
frequent, but not constant handling and fingering with his bilateral upper
extremities; avoid concentrated exposure to fumes, odors, dusts, gases, and poor
ventilation; avoid hazards, including moving machinery and unprotected heights;
is limited to simple routine, and repetitive tasks; and requires a low stress job

James Henry Wright v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration
Civil No. JMC-13-CV-3839
December 22, 2014
Page 2
defined as having only occasional decision making and occasional changes in the
work setting.
(Tr. 18). After considering the testimony of a vocational expert (“VE”), the ALJ determined that
Mr. Wright could perform jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy (such as
security guard, order clerk, or inspector) and that therefore he was not disabled. (Tr. 25).
Mr. Wright raises two arguments on appeal. First, Mr. Wright argues that at the third
step of the sequential evaluation process the ALJ failed to analyze listing 11.09 (multiple
sclerosis) with any specificity and further failed to explain her reasoning as to why he did not
meet that listing. (ECF No. 18 at 7). Second, Mr. Wright argues that the ALJ’s residual
functional capacity (“RFC”) is not supported by substantial evidence because it included
“occasional balancing” which directly conflicts with the State Agency’s medical consultant Dr.
Albright’s opinion that he should be limited to “no balancing.” (Id. at 15). Each argument lacks
merit and is addressed below.
With respect to Mr. Wright’s argument regarding the ALJ’s conclusion that he did not
meet listing 11.09, he emphasizes that she should have compared each of his symptoms to the
listed criteria at the third step of the sequential evaluation. (Id. at 7). Mr. Wright is correct in
noting that at that section of her written opinion, the ALJ does not discuss the basis for finding
that Mr. Wright does not meet the listing; rather she simply states that “[w]ith regard to the
claimant’s multiple sclerosis, inconsideration of listings 11.09 revealed the evidence does not
establish the requisite severity of disorganization of motor function, visual or mental impairment
or fatigue required”. (Tr. 16). However, as Defendant argues, the ALJ’s analysis throughout the
body of her decision is much more thorough. (ECF No. 20-1 at 10). In particular, the ALJ’s
written evaluation of Mr. Wright’s RFC demonstrates that she appropriately assessed Mr.
Wright’s symptoms and that her finding that Mr. Wright’s multiple sclerosis did not meet or
equal listing 11.09 is supported by substantial evidence. (Tr. 19-21).
Regarding Mr. Wright’s second argument that the ALJ erroneously failed to incorporate
Dr. Albright’s opinion regarding his complete inability to balance into her RFC and the
hypothetical posed to the vocational expert (“VE”), Defendant argues that this error was
harmless. (ECF No. 20-1 at 12). For an error to be harmless it must not have prejudiced the
claimant. An error prejudices a claimant if, absent the error, there is a realistic possibility the
ALJ would have reached a different conclusion. Specifically with respect to an RFC
determination or a hypothetical posed to a VE, the failure to include certain limitations is
considered harmless as long as the jobs cited by the VE “fit within the actual parameters” of the
claimant’s RFC. Blackstone v. Astrue, No. CIV. SKG-12-2776, 2014 WL 253538, at *3 (D. Md.
Jan. 17, 2014) (“If an ALJ fails to accurately state a claimant's RFC in a hypothetical to a
vocational expert, but that failure does not change the outcome of the decision because the
vocational expert identifies an occupation that fits within the parameters of the limitation that
was omitted, the ALJ's failure amounts to harmless error.”); see also McClellan v. Comm'r Soc.
Sec. Admin., No. SAG–12–1767, 2013 WL 1703879 at *4 (D. Md. April 18, 2013) (finding that

James Henry Wright v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration
Civil No. JMC-13-CV-3839
December 22, 2014
Page 3
any error in failing to include a restriction in a hypothetical that was not required in the DOT job
description was harmless).
Here, the VE—after being instructed that Mr. Wright was limited to occasional balancing
rather than no balancing—opined that he would be able to perform occupations such as security
guard (379.367-010), order clerk (209.567-014), or inspector (669.687-014). (Tr. 25, 52-53).
The DOT’s description of each of those three jobs are as follows:
Surveillance-System Monitor
Monitors premises of public transportation terminals to detect crimes or
disturbances, using closed circuit television monitors, and notifies authorities by
telephone of need for corrective action: Observes television screens that transmit
in sequence views of transportation facility sites. Pushes hold button to maintain
surveillance of location where incident is developing, and telephones police or
other designated agency to notify authorities of location of disruptive activity.
Adjusts monitor controls when required to improve reception, and notifies repair
service of equipment malfunctions.
…
Balancing: Not Present-Activity or condition does not exist
U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Statistics, Dictionary of Occupational Titles § 379.367-010 (4th
ed. 1991).
Order Clerk, Food and Beverage
Takes food and beverage orders over telephone or intercom system and records
order on ticket: Records order and time received on ticket to ensure prompt
service, using time-stamping device. Suggests menu items, and substitutions for
items not available, and answers questions regarding food or service. Distributes
order tickets or calls out order to kitchen employees. May collect charge vouchers
and cash for service and keep record of transactions. May be designated according
to type of order handled as Telephone-Order Clerk, Drive-In (hotel & rest.);
Telephone-Order Clerk, Room Service (hotel & rest.).
…
Balancing: Not Present-Activity or condition does not exist
Id. at § 209.567-014.
Dowel Inspector
Inspects dowel pins for flaws, such as square ends, knots, or splits, and discards
defective dowels.
…
Balancing: Not Present-Activity or condition does not exist

James Henry Wright v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration
Civil No. JMC-13-CV-3839
December 22, 2014
Page 4
Id. at § 669.687-014. A review of the above definitions confirms that none of the jobs suggested
by the VE would require Mr. Wright to balance. Accordingly, any error in failing to consider
Mr. Wright’s complete inability to balance is harmless because there is not a realistic possibility
that absent such an error, the ALJ would have reached a different conclusion.
For the reasons set forth herein, Mr. Wright’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No.
18) is DENIED and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 20) is GRANTED.
The clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.
Despite the informal nature of this letter, it should be flagged as an opinion and docketed
as an order.
Sincerely yours,

/s/
J. Mark Coulson
United States Magistrate Judge