Bock v. Berryhill

Filing 15

ORDER denying 13 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 14 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment; and remanding the case for further proceedings. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie A Gallagher on 1/10/2018. (bmhs, 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 10, 2018
LETTER TO COUNSEL
RE:

Hannah Marie Bock v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration;
Civil No. SAG-17-661

Dear Counsel:
On March 9, 2017, Plaintiff Hannah Marie Bock petitioned this Court to review the
Social Security Administration’s final decision to deny her claims for Disability Insurance
Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. [ECF No. 1]. I have considered the parties’ crossmotions for summary judgment. [ECF Nos. 13, 14]. I find that no hearing is necessary. See
Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2016). 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 deny both motions, reverse the judgment of the Commissioner, and remand the
case to the Commissioner for further analysis pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
This letter explains my rationale.
Ms. Bock protectively filed her claims for benefits on March 15, 2013, alleging a
disability onset date of November 15, 2012. (Tr. 252-65). Her claims were denied initially and
on reconsideration. (Tr. 141-45, 148-51). A hearing was held on October 27, 2015, before an
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). (Tr. 28-88). Following the hearing, the ALJ determined
that Ms. Bock was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act during the relevant
time frame. (Tr. 11-23). The Appeals Council denied Ms. Bock’s request for further review,
(Tr. 1-4), so the ALJ’s decision constitutes the final, reviewable decision of the Agency.
The ALJ found that Ms. Bock suffered from the severe impairments of “borderline
intellectual functioning, Type 1 Myotonic Dystrophy, asthma, an affective disorder[,] and
obesity.” (Tr. 13). Despite these impairments, the ALJ determined that Ms. Bock retained the
residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to:
perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b) except that
she must be allowed to rest for 10 minutes every two hours. Further, she is never
to be required to use ladders, ropes or scaffolds. Moreover, she can frequently,
but not continuously, use stairs and ramps, crawl, crouch, bend and stoop. In
addition, she is limited to an inside work environment and is not to be exposed to
excessive cold, heat, humidity, poor ventilation or smoke. Further, she is not to
be exposed to hazards such as heights or dangerous machinery. She is also
limited to simple, routine, repetitive tasks. Further, she is to be required to have

Hannah Marie Bock v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration;
Civil No. SAG-17-661
January 10, 2018
Page 2
no more than occasional interaction with peers, the public and supervisors. In
addition, she is limited [sic] no more than occasional feeling as well as fine and
gross dexterity.
(Tr. 16). After considering the testimony of a vocational expert (“VE”), the ALJ determined that
Ms. Bock could perform several jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy
and that, therefore, she was not disabled. (Tr. 22-23).
Ms. Bock raises six primary arguments on appeal: (1) that the ALJ provided an
inadequate analysis of Listing 11.13; (2) that the ALJ provided an inadequate analysis of mental
health Listings 12.04 and 12.06; (3) that the ALJ’s credibility assessment ran afoul of the Fourth
Circuit’s opinion in Lewis v. Berryhill, 858 F.3d 858 (4th Cir. 2017); (4) that the ALJ’s
assignments of weight to the opinions of medical sources were erroneous; (5) that the ALJ failed
to assign weight to the opinion of Ms. Bock’s mother; and (6) that the ALJ improperly relied
upon testimony from the VE. Pl. Mot. 7-27. Although some of Ms. Bock’s arguments clearly
lack merit, I agree that the ALJ’s evaluation of Listing 11.13 was inadequate and therefore
remand the case to the Commissioner. In remanding for additional explanation, I express no
opinion as to whether the ALJ’s ultimate conclusion that Ms. Bock is not entitled to benefits is
correct.
Beginning with the successful argument, Ms. Bock contends that the ALJ failed to
properly evaluate Listing 11.13. Pl. Mot. 8-10. The entirety of the analysis reads:
In addition, the claimant’s Myotonic dystrophy does not meet any listing section
under Appendix I. The undersigned has particularly considered section 11.13.
The claimant’s condition does not meet the criteria set forth by that section.
(Tr. 14). The ALJ, however, did not provide any further evidence to support his conclusions that
Ms. Bock’s impairments did not meet or medically equal the Listing.
Although the
Commissioner, in her brief, offers some medical evidence in support of the argument that Listing
11.13 was not met, it is not the province of this Court to cobble together a meaningful
explanation for a determination that a Listing has not been not satisfied. See Radford v. Colvin,
734 F.3d 288, 296 (4th Cir. 2013). The limited discussion of Ms. Bock’s myotonic dystrophy in
the RFC analysis does not address all of the criteria of the Listing (e.g., whether Ms. Bock’s
impairment in the use of her upper extremities could be considered “marked or extreme”). See
(Tr. 19). The fact that the ALJ limited the RFC assessment to include only occasional use of
upper extremities highlights the need for a more precise analysis of the Listing criteria. The ALJ
should, on remand, expand his analysis to cite specific medical evidence pertaining to the
relevant criteria of Listing 11.13.
Because the case is being remanded for the reasons set forth above, the remainder of Ms.
Bock’s arguments need not be addressed in detail. On remand, however, the ALJ should
consider the need to: (1) provide a complete credibility assessment incorporating both objective
information and statements made by Ms. Bock that reflect on her credibility; (2) address in full

Hannah Marie Bock v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration;
Civil No. SAG-17-661
January 10, 2018
Page 3
the opinions rendered by her treating physician, Dr. Anwar; (3) make a precise assignment of
weight to the opinion of Ms. Bock’s mother; and (4) determine whether the VE’s testimony
comports with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT).
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, [ECF No. 13],
is DENIED, and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, [ECF No. 14], is DENIED.
Pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the Commissioner’s judgment is REVERSED
IN PART due to inadequate analysis. The case is REMANDED for further proceedings in
accordance with this opinion. 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/
Stephanie A. Gallagher
United States Magistrate Judge