Benjamin v. Berryhill

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying Plaintiff's 12 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying Defendant's 13 Motion for Summary Judgment; reversing in part Commissioner's judgment due to inadequate analysis; remanding case for further proceedings; closing case. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie A Gallagher on 4/17/2018. (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]

April 17, 2018

LETTER TO COUNSEL
RE:

Sandra Benjamin v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration;1
Civil No. SAG-17-1680

Dear Counsel:
On June 20, 2017, Plaintiff Sandra Benjamin petitioned this Court to review the Social
Security Administration’s [“SSA”] final decision to deny her claim for benefits. [ECF No. 1]. I
have considered the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. [ECF Nos. 12, 13]. 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); see also Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d
585, 589 (4th Cir. 1996). Under that standard, I will deny both motions, reverse the
Commissioner’s decision, and remand the case to the Commissioner for further consideration.
This letter explains my rationale.
Ms. Benjamin filed a claim for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) on March 4, 2014,
alleging a disability onset date of January 6, 2014. (Tr. 220-21). Her claim was denied initially
and on reconsideration. (Tr. 101-13, 115-28). A hearing was held on May 24, 2016, before an
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). (Tr. 55-94). Following the hearing, the ALJ determined
that Ms. Benjamin was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act during the
relevant time frame. (Tr. 20-43). The Appeals Council (“AC”) denied Ms. Benjamin’s request
for review, (Tr. 1-3), so the ALJ’s decision constitutes the final, reviewable decision of the
Agency.
The ALJ found that Ms. Benjamin suffered from the severe impairments of “EhlersDanlos syndrome, hypermobile joint syndrome, degenerative disc disease of the cervical and
lumbar spine, uterine prolapse, plantar fasciitis, and chronic fatigue syndrome.” (Tr. 23).
Despite these impairments, the ALJ determined that Ms. Benjamin retained the residual
functional capacity (“RFC”) to:
perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) with the following
additional limitations: the claimant can occasionally climb ramps and stairs;
1

Currently, the position of Commissioner of the Social Security Administration is vacant, and most duties are
fulfilled by Nancy A. Berryhill, Deputy Commissioner for Operations, performing the duties and functions not
reserved to the Commissioner of Social Security.

Sandra Benjamin v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration
Civil No. SAG-17-1680
April 17, 2018
Page 2
occasionally climb ladders, ropes and scaffolds; and occasionally balance, stoop,
kneel, crouch, and crawl.
(Tr. 28). After considering the testimony of a vocational expert (“VE”), the ALJ determined that
Ms. Benjamin could perform her past relevant work as a laboratory technician. (Tr. 41-42).
Accordingly, the ALJ determined that Ms. Benjamin was not disabled. (Tr. 42).
Ms. Benjamin raises two primary arguments on appeal, namely: (1) that the ALJ
erroneously relied upon the VE’s testimony; and (2) that the ALJ erroneously assessed her RFC.
Each argument is addressed below.
I.

The ALJ’s Reliance on the VE’s Testimony

First, Ms. Benjamin argues that the ALJ erroneously relied upon the VE’s testimony to
determine that she was capable of performing her past relevant work. Past work is relevant when
“it was done within the last 15 years, lasted long enough for [the claimant] to learn to do it, and
was substantial gainful activity.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1565. At the hearing, the VE considered and
individually classified Ms. Benjamin’s prior jobs, specifically her employment as a teacher’s
aide, administrative assistant, art teacher, and laboratory technician. (Tr. 84-85). As Ms.
Benjamin notes, the ALJ incorrectly cited “DOT#078.367-014” as the occupational code number
for “laboratory technician.”2 (Tr. 42). It is quite apparent, however, that the ALJ intended to
refer to the job title of “MEDICAL-LABORATORY TECHNICIAN,” which is listed in Section
078.381-014 of the DOT. Importantly, Ms. Benjamin testified that, in 2006, she worked as a
“lab tech” for four months. (Tr. 85). The VE mistakenly concluded that the Medical-Laboratory
Technician position (DOT #078.381-014) had a Specific Vocational Preparation (“SVP”) of
level four, and that, as such, Ms. Benjamin’s 2006 four-month stint was sufficient “to learn the
skills to perform at that level[]” (SVP 4). (Tr. 84-86). The DOT provides, however, that the
Medical-Laboratory Technician (DOT #078.381) position is classified as SVP “Level 5,” thus
requiring “[o]ver 6 months up to and including 1 year” of training.” DOT, Medical-Laboratory
Technician, job no. 078.381-014, available at 1991 WL 646827. The VE’s testimony thus
conflicts with the DOT.
In resolving an apparent conflict between the VE’s testimony and the DOT, the ALJ
“must elicit a reasonable explanation for the conflict before relying on the VE or VS evidence to
support a determination or decision about whether the claimant is disabled.” SSR 00-4P, 2000
WL 1898704, at *2 (S.S.A. Dec. 4, 2000); see also Henderson v. Colvin, 643 F. App’x 273, 277
(4th Cir. 2016); (“[A] VE’s testimony that apparently conflicts with the DOT can only provide
substantial evidence if the ALJ received an explanation from the VE explaining the conflict and
determined both that the explanation was reasonable and that it provided a basis for relying on
the VE’s testimony rather than the DOT.”) (citation omitted); Buckner-Larkin v. Astrue, 450 F.
App’x 626, 628-29 (9th Cir. 2011). Importantly, “[e]vidence from VEs . . . can include
Number “078.367-014” is a nonexistent occupational code number. See Pl.’s Mem., [ECF No. 12-1 at
4].
2

Sandra Benjamin v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration
Civil No. SAG-17-1680
April 17, 2018
Page 3
information not listed in the DOT . . . [,] [but] available in other reliable publications,
information obtained directly from employers, or from a VE’s . . . experience in job placement or
career counseling.” SSR 00-4P, 2000 WL 1898704, at *2. Here, the ALJ failed to make any
inquiry of the VE regarding her testimony’s apparent conflict with the DOT. See (Tr. 83-94).
Instead, the ALJ simply adopted the VE’s mistaken conclusion that the Medical-Laboratory
Technician (DOT #078.381) position was classified as SVP Level 4, and that, as such, Ms.
Benjamin could perform her past relevant work as a laboratory technician. (Tr. 41-42) (“The
[VE] further indicated the claimant had enough time to learn the skills for this job.”).
Defendant’s argument that the ALJ’s reliance on the VE’s flawed analysis constitutes
harmless error is unavailing. See Def.’s Mem. 6-7. Specifically, Defendant contends that,
because the VE also testified that Ms. Benjamin: (1) could perform her past relevant work as a
general office clerk or an art teacher; and (2) could also perform jobs existing in significant
numbers in the national economy, including those of unskilled office helper, non-postal mail
clerk, and router clerk, that the ALJ’s reliance on her previous position as a laboratory technician
is harmless. While Defendant accurately recounts the VE’s testimony as to these alternative
jobs, the ALJ, nonetheless, failed to consider these positions, and based her findings solely on
Ms. Benjamin’s past work as a laboratory technician. See (Tr. 41-42). As such, remand is
required, because the ALJ’s ultimate determination that Ms. Benjamin was not disabled is based
solely on the VE’s flawed Medical-Laboratory Technician analysis and the ALJ’s subsequent
failure to probe its conflict with the DOT. See Hancock v. Astrue, 667 F.3d 470, 472 (4th Cir.
2012) (“In reviewing for substantial evidence, we do not . . . substitute our judgment for that of
the [ALJ].”) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). I cannot
review a tentative finding that the ALJ failed to make. In remanding, I express no opinion
regarding whether the ALJ’s ultimate conclusion that Ms. Benjamin is not entitled to benefits is
correct.
II.

The ALJ’s RFC Assessment

Next, Ms. Benjamin argues that the ALJ erroneously assessed her RFC by failing to: (1)
adequately provide a narrative discussion; and (2) properly address her hand impairment. Ms.
Benjamin’s argument is without merit. Social Security regulations provide that the RFC
assessment “must include a narrative discussion describing how the evidence supports each
conclusion, citing specific medical facts (e.g., laboratory findings) and nonmedical evidence
(e.g., daily activities, observations).” Monroe v. Colvin, 826 F.3d 176, 189 (4th Cir. 2016)
(quoting SSR 96-8P, 1996 WL 374184, at *7 (1996)). In doing so, an ALJ must “build an
accurate and logical bridge from the evidence to his conclusion.” Clifford v. Apfel, 227 F.3d 863,
872 (7th Cir. 2000), as amended (Dec. 13, 2000). With respect to physical RFC, “[e]xertional
capacity addresses an individual’s limitations and restrictions of physical strength and defines the
individual’s remaining abilities to perform each of seven strength demands: [s]itting, standing,
walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, and pulling.” SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *5.
Meanwhile, nonexertional capacity considers limitations not dependent on an individual’s
physical strength, including “postural (e.g., stooping, climbing), manipulative (e.g., reaching,
handling), visual (seeing), communicative (hearing, speaking), and mental (e.g., understanding

Sandra Benjamin v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration
Civil No. SAG-17-1680
April 17, 2018
Page 4
and remembering instructions and responding appropriately to supervision)[,]” activities. Id. at
*6.
Contrary to Ms. Benjamin’s assertions, the ALJ thoroughly addressed her limitations
(including her alleged hand impairment), citing medical facts and non-medical evidence to
support her RFC assessment. See (Tr. 28-41). Specifically, the ALJ noted Ms. Benjamin’s: (1)
January 2013 examination with Newbridge Spine and Pain Center, which concluded that she had
a normal gait, full range of motion with minimal pain, full motor strength in all muscle groups of
the upper and lower extremities, and appropriate range of motion of the shoulders, elbows,
wrists, hands, hips, knees, feet, and ankles (Tr. 31, 378-79); (2) February 2014 examination with
Arthritis and Rheumatism Associates (“ARA”), which demonstrated normal hands, ribs, and
shoulders (Tr. 32, 591); (3) May 2014 internal consultative examination with the State Agency,
which demonstrated normal arm strength and full grip strength (Tr. 35, 981); and (4) July 2014
follow up examination with ARA, which demonstrated normal gait, stance, and balance (Tr. 32,
987). The ALJ also cited the opinions of the State Agency Medical Consultants, who did not
find any manipulative limitations (Tr. 37-78, 110, 126).
Ultimately, my review of the ALJ’s decision is confined to whether substantial evidence,
in the record as it was reviewed by the ALJ, supports the decision and whether correct legal
standards were applied. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 390, 404 (1971). Even if there is
other evidence that may support Ms. Benjamin’s position, I am not permitted to reweigh the
evidence or to substitute my own judgment for that of the ALJ. Hays v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453,
1456 (4th Cir. 1990). In considering the entire record, and the evidence outlined above, I find
that the ALJ supported her conclusion pertaining to Ms. Benjamin’s physical condition with
substantial evidence. Remand is, therefore, unwarranted on this basis.
III.

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth herein, Ms. Benjamin’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF
No. 12] is DENIED, and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 13] 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