Meredith v. Colvin

Filing 31

ORDER granting 28 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment; affirming the SSA's judgment; directing Clerk to close this case. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie A Gallagher on 4/16/2018. (c/m 4/16/18) (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]

April 16, 2018
Herbert Russell Meredith
1300 Southview Drive #104
Oxon Hill, MD 20745
Jennifer H. Stinnette, Esq.
Social Security Administration
6401 Security Boulevard Room 617
Baltimore, MD 21235
RE:

Herbert Russell Meredith v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration;1
Civil No. SAG-16-3457

Dear Mr. Meredith and Counsel:
On October 17, 2016, Plaintiff Herbert Russell Meredith petitioned this Court to review
the Social Security Administration’s (“SSA”) final decision to deny his claim for Disability
Insurance Benefits (“DIB”). [ECF No. 1]. I have considered the SSA’s Motion for Summary
Judgment and Mr. Meredith’s response, in addition to arguments made by Mr. Meredith’s former
attorney during and following the administrative hearing. [ECF Nos. 28, 30]. 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 SSA’s motion and affirm the SSA’s judgment
pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). This letter explains my rationale.
Mr. Meredith filed a claim for DIB on June 1, 2012, alleging a disability onset date of
November 13, 2009. (Tr. 139-44). He later amended his alleged onset date to the date of his
application. (Tr. 21). His claim was denied initially and on reconsideration. (Tr. 70-73, 78-79).
A hearing, at which Mr. Meredith was represented by counsel, was held on April 9, 2015, before
an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). (Tr. 19-50). Following that hearing, the ALJ determined
that Mr. Meredith was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act during the
relevant time frame. (Tr. 9-14). The Appeals Council denied Mr. Meredith’s request for review,
(Tr. 1-5), so the ALJ’s decision constitutes the final, reviewable decision of the Agency.

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.

Herbert Russell Meredith v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration
Civil No. SAG-16-3457
April 16, 2018
Page 2
The ALJ found that, through his date last insured of June 30, 2014, Mr. Meredith suffered
from the severe impairments of “diabetes mellitus, gout, kidney disease, hypertension, and
obesity.” (Tr. 11). Despite these impairments, the ALJ determined that Mr. Meredith retained
the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to:
perform light work, as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b), except that he can no
more than occasionally stoop, kneel, crouch, crawl, and climb ladders, ropes,
scaffolds, ramps, and stairs; and no more than frequently balance.
(Tr. 12). After considering the testimony of a vocational expert (“VE”), the ALJ determined that
Mr. Meredith could perform his past relevant work as a traffic reporter, and, accordingly, was
not disabled. (Tr. 14).
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 SSA’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. Meredith’s favor at step one, and determined that he had not
engaged in substantial gainful activity between his alleged onset date and his date last insured.
(Tr. 11); 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. Meredith claimed prevented him
from working. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii). The ALJ determined that
Mr. Meredith’s diabetic peripheral neuropathy was not documented in the medical record and
therefore was not a medically determinable impairment. (Tr. 11). However, after finding several
of Mr. Meredith’s other impairments severe, id., the ALJ continued with the sequential
evaluation and considered, in assessing Mr. Meredith’s RFC, the extent to which his impairments
limited his ability to work.
At step three, the ALJ determined that Mr. Meredith’s impairments did not meet or
medically equal the criteria of any listings. Id. In particular, the ALJ considered the listings
applicable to diabetes mellitus (9.00), hypertension (4.00(H)(1)), and kidney disease (6.05), but
determined that at least one criterion for each listing was not met. Id. I have carefully reviewed
the record, and I agree that no listings are met in this case.
In considering Mr. Meredith’s RFC, the ALJ summarized his subjective complaints from
his hearing testimony. (Tr. 12). The ALJ then engaged in a review of Mr. Meredith’s medical
records. (Tr. 13). The ALJ noted, “Objective clinical findings have been essentially normal, and
the claimant’s chronic conditions are stable and controlled with medication.” Id. The ALJ also
observed that Mr. Meredith “drives his wife to work nearly every day, helps out around the

Herbert Russell Meredith v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration
Civil No. SAG-16-3457
April 16, 2018
Page 3
house, remains interested in seeing friends, drove himself to his hearing, and applied to jobs as a
truck driver since claiming total disability.” Id. The ALJ assigned “great weight” to the opinion
rendered by the State medical consultant, Dr. W. Hakkarinen, whose opinion is consistent with
the RFC assessment. Id. The ALJ noted that none of Mr. Meredith’s treating providers
suggested any additional functional limitations. Id.
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. Meredith’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 his conclusion with substantial evidence.
Next, relying on the VE’s testimony, (Tr. 49), the ALJ determined that a person with Mr.
Meredith’s RFC would be capable of performing his past relevant work as a traffic reporter.
(Tr. 14). In fact, in Mr. Meredith’s response, he notes that the reason he left the traffic reporter
job was the unsafe vehicle he was asked to drive, not an inability to perform the physical
demands of the work. [ECF No. 30]. 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. 28), is GRANTED. The SSA’s judgment is AFFIRMED pursuant to sentence four of
42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 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