Bolton v. Colvin

Filing 20

ORDER granting 18 Motion for Summary Judgment; affirming the Commissioner's judgment; directing Clerk to close this case. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie A Gallagher on 12/14/2017. (c/m 12/14/17) (krs, 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]

December 14, 2017
Brandon Bolton
5427 56th Avenue, Apt. 2
Riverdale, MD 20737
Jennifer H. Stinnette
Social Security Administration
6401 Security Boulevard Room 617
Baltimore, MD 21235
RE:

Brandon Bolton v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration
Civil No. SAG-16-3118

Dear Mr. Bolton and Counsel:
On September 11, 2016, Plaintiff Brandon Bolton petitioned this Court to review the
Social Security Administration’s final decision to deny his claims. [ECF No. 1]. I have
considered the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment, in addition to arguments made
by Mr. Bolton’s former attorney at the administrative hearing.1 [ECF No. 18]. 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. §§ 4051(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 affirm the
Commissioner’s judgment pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). This letter explains
my rationale.
Mr. Bolton filed claims for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and Supplemental
Security Income (“SSI”) in January, 2012, alleging a disability onset date of April 1, 2007. (Tr.
257-69). His claims were denied initially and on reconsideration. (Tr. 74-97, 100-27). After an
initial hearing was postponed to allow Mr. Bolton to seek counsel, (Tr. 64-73), a hearing, at
which Mr. Bolton was represented by counsel, was held on November 18, 2014, before an
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), (Tr. 35-63). Following that hearing, the ALJ determined
that Mr. Bolton was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act during the
relevant time frame. (Tr. 16-28). The Appeals Council denied Mr. Bolton’s request for review,
(Tr. 1-4), so the ALJ’s decision constitutes the final, reviewable decision of the Agency.
1

On November 8, 2017, the Clerk’s Office sent Mr. Bolton a Rule 12/56 letter, advising him of the potential
consequences of failing to oppose the Commissioner’s dispositive motion. [ECF No. 19]. Mr. Bolton did not file
any response before the deadline.

Brandon Bolton v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration
Civil No. SAG-16-3118
December 14, 2017
Page 2
The ALJ found that Mr. Bolton suffered from the severe impairments of “seizure
disorder; and status post traumatic brain injury.” (Tr. 18). Despite these impairments, the ALJ
determined that Mr. Bolton retained the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to:
perform medium work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(c) and 416.967(c), except
due to his seizure disorder, he can never climb ropes, ladders or scaffolds, and he
must avoid all exposure to hazards, such as dangerous machinery and heights.
Additionally, he must avoid concentrated exposure to fumes, odors, dusts and
gases. Finally, the claimant can perform only simple, routine and repetitive tasks
that involve no production rate for pace of work.
(Tr. 22). After considering the testimony of a vocational expert (“VE”), the ALJ determined that
Mr. Bolton, who had no past relevant work, could perform jobs existing in significant numbers in
the national economy. (Tr. 26-27). Accordingly, the ALJ determined that Mr. Bolton was not
disabled. (Tr. 27).
I have carefully reviewed the ALJ’s opinion and the entire record. See Elam v. Barnhart,
386 F. Supp. 2d 746, 753 (E.D. Tex. 2005) (mapping an analytical framework for judicial review
of a pro se action challenging an adverse administrative decision, including: (1) examining
whether the Commissioner’s decision generally comports with regulations, (2) reviewing the
ALJ’s critical findings for compliance with the law, and (3) determining from the evidentiary
record whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s findings). For the reasons described
below, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision.
The ALJ proceeded in accordance with applicable law at all five steps of the sequential
evaluation. The ALJ ruled in Mr. Bolton’s favor at step one, and determined that he had not
engaged in substantial gainful activity since his alleged onset date. (Tr. 18); see 20 C.F.R. §§
404.1520(a)(4)(i), 416.920(a)(4)(i). At step two, the ALJ then considered the severity of each of
the impairments that Mr. Bolton claimed prevented him from working. (Tr. 18-21); see 20
C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii). The ALJ determined Mr. Bolton’s headaches,
hypertension, and asthma were non-severe. (Tr. 21). Nevertheless, in light of those medically
determinable impairments, the ALJ imposed a restriction limiting Mr. Bolton’s exposure to
fumes, odors, dusts and gases. Id. After finding that other impairments were severe, the ALJ
continued with the sequential evaluation and considered, in assessing Mr. Bolton’s RFC, the
extent to which his impairments limited his ability to work.
At step three, the ALJ determined that Mr. Bolton’s impairments did not meet, or
medically equal, the criteria of any listings. (Tr. 21-22). Specifically, the ALJ noted that Mr.
Bolton’s seizures do not meet the frequency, severity, or duration requirements of Listings 11.02
or 11.03. Id. In addition, because Mr. Bolton alleged mental impairments, the ALJ applied the
special technique for evaluation of such claims, using a five-point scale to rate a claimant's
degree of limitation in the first three functional areas: none, mild, moderate, marked, or extreme.
20 C.F.R. § 416.920a(c)(4). To satisfy paragraph B, a claimant must exhibit either “marked”

Brandon Bolton v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration
Civil No. SAG-16-3118
December 14, 2017
Page 3
limitations in two of the first three areas, or “marked” limitation in one of the first three areas
with repeated episodes of decompensation. See, e.g., 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1 §
12.02. The ALJ determined that Mr. Bolton had no limitation in activities of daily living or
social functioning, moderate limitation in concentration, persistence, or pace, and no episodes of
decompensation. (Tr. 21). The ALJ cited to evidence from the record, specifically the
evaluations of the State agency physicians, to support those conclusions. Id. Therefore, the
mental health listings were not met. I have carefully reviewed the record, and I agree that no
listings are met in this case.
In considering Mr. Bolton’s RFC, the ALJ summarized his subjective complaints from
his hearing testimony and his written submissions. (Tr. 22-23). The ALJ then engaged in a
detailed review of Mr. Bolton’s mental and physical medical records. (Tr. 23-26). The ALJ
noted that the record reflected few physical or mental limitations and no restrictions in activity.
(Tr. 26). The ALJ cited Mr. Bolton’s extensive volunteer work teaching basketball at a
recreation center, his lack of mental health treatment with a specialist, and his failure to follow
up with a neurologist regarding his seizures as evidence that his symptoms were not disabling.
Id. The ALJ also noted that Mr. Bolton’s seizure disorder is described as “stable” or “much
better” in several medical appointments, and that he denied experiencing seizures during other
appointments. (Tr. 25-26). Ultimately, the ALJ concluded that Mr. Bolton’s testimony was not
credible, and that significant functional limitations were not reflected in the medical evidence of
record. (Tr. 26). Finally, the ALJ adopted the opinions of the non-examining State agency
psychiatrists and assigned “significant weight” to the assessment of State agency physician Dr.
Hakkarinien, although the ALJ imposed a more significant restriction with respect to exposure to
hazards. (Tr. 21, 24, 26).
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 Mr. Bolton’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). After considering the entire record, and the evidence outlined above, I find
that the ALJ supported his conclusion with substantial evidence.
Next, relying on the VE’s testimony, the ALJ determined that a person with Mr. Bolton’s
RFC could perform jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy. (Tr. 27).
Accordingly, I find that the ALJ’s determination must be affirmed.
For the reasons set forth herein, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, [ECF No.
18], is GRANTED. The Commissioner’s judgment is AFFIRMED pursuant to sentence four of
42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.

Brandon Bolton v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration
Civil No. SAG-16-3118
December 14, 2017
Page 4
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