Clarke v. Colvin
Filing
20
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. DiGirolamo on 9/26/2018. (jrs, Chambers)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Southern Division
MICHAEL CLARKE,
*
*
Plaintiff,
*
*
v.
*
*
*
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
*
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
*
*
1
Defendant.
*
************
Civil No. TMD 17-105
MEMORANDUM OPINION GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff Michael Clarke seeks judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of a final
decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Defendant” or the “Commissioner”) denying
his application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. Before
the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 16) and Defendant’s Motion
for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 19).2 Plaintiff contends that the administrative record does not
contain substantial evidence to support the Commissioner’s decision that he is not disabled. No
hearing is necessary. L.R. 105.6. For the reasons that follow, Defendant’s Motion for Summary
1
On April 17, 2018, Nancy A. Berryhill became the Acting Commissioner of Social Security.
See 5 U.S.C. § 3346(a)(2); Patterson v. Berryhill, No. 2:18-cv-00193-DWA, slip op. at 2 (W.D.
Pa. June 14, 2018).
2
The Fourth Circuit has noted that, “in social security cases, we often use summary judgment as
a procedural means to place the district court in position to fulfill its appellate function, not as a
device to avoid nontriable issues under usual Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 standards.”
Walls v. Barnhart, 296 F.3d 287, 289 n.2 (4th Cir. 2002). For example, “the denial of summary
judgment accompanied by a remand to the Commissioner results in a judgment under sentence
four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which is immediately appealable.” Id.
Judgment (ECF No. 19) is GRANTED, Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 16)
is DENIED, and the Commissioner’s final decision is AFFIRMED.
I
Background
On December 23, 2015, Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Jennifer M. Long found that
Plaintiff was not disabled from April 4, 2012, through the date of her decision. R. at 7-20. In so
finding, the ALJ found that Plaintiff’s sleep apnea, obesity, and spine disorders were severe
impairments. R. at 13. The ALJ found, however, that Plaintiff’s diabetes mellitus, acute venous
embolism and thrombosis of unspecified deep vessels of the lower extremity, lung disease, acute
respiratory failure, acute kidney failure, and muscle weakness were not severe impairments. R.
at 13. The ALJ noted, among other things, that a physical examination showed edema in both
extremities and an ulcer, but other physical examinations showed normal circulation. R. at 13.
The ALJ then found that Plaintiff did not have an impairment or a combination of
impairments meeting or medically equaling the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20
C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1. R. at 13. The ALJ then determined that Plaintiff had the
residual functional capacity (“RFC”)
to perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) except lifting and
carrying twenty pounds occasionally and ten pounds frequently; standing and
walking four hours, sitting six hours in an eight-hour work day, alternating
between sitting and standing every hour; never climbing ladders, ropes, or
scaffolds, occasionally climbing ramps and stairs, balancing, stooping, kneeling,
crouching, and crawling; and he must avoid even moderate exposure to hazards
such as machinery and heights.
R. at 13. The ALJ found that Plaintiff was capable of performing his past relevant work as an
auto parts counter worker. R. at 16.
2
On January 12, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint in this Court seeking review of the
Commissioner’s decision. Upon the parties’ consent, this case was transferred to a United States
Magistrate Judge for final disposition and entry of judgment. The case then was reassigned to
the undersigned. The parties have briefed the issues, and the matter is now fully submitted.
II
Disability Determinations and Burden of Proof
The Social Security Act defines a disability as the inability to engage in any substantial
gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment that can
be expected to result in death or that has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period
of not less than twelve months.
42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A); 20 C.F.R.
§§ 404.1505, 416.905. A claimant has a disability when the claimant is “not only unable to do
his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in
any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists . . . in significant numbers either in the
region where such individual lives or in several regions of the country.”
42 U.S.C.
§§ 423(d)(2)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(B).
To determine whether a claimant has a disability within the meaning of the Social
Security Act, the Commissioner follows a five-step sequential evaluation process outlined in the
regulations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920; see Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 24-25, 124
S. Ct. 376, 379-80 (2003). “If at any step a finding of disability or nondisability can be made,
the [Commissioner] will not review the claim further.” Thomas, 540 U.S. at 24, 124 S. Ct. at
379; see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4). The claimant has the burden of production
and proof at steps one through four. See Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 n.5, 107 S. Ct.
2287, 2294 n.5 (1987); Radford v. Colvin, 734 F.3d 288, 291 (4th Cir. 2013).
3
First, the Commissioner will consider a claimant’s work activity. If the claimant is
engaged in substantial gainful activity, then the claimant is not disabled.
20 C.F.R.
§§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i), 416.920(a)(4)(i).
Second, if the claimant is not engaged in substantial gainful activity, the Commissioner
looks to see whether the claimant has a “severe” impairment, i.e., an impairment or combination
of impairments that significantly limits the claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work
activities. Pass v. Chater, 65 F.3d 1200, 1203 (4th Cir. 1995); see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c),
404.1521(a), 416.920(c), 416.921(a).3
Third, if the claimant has a severe impairment, then the Commissioner will consider the
medical severity of the impairment. If the impairment meets or equals one of the presumptively
disabling impairments listed in the regulations, then the claimant is considered disabled,
regardless of age, education, and work experience.
20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii),
404.1520(d), 416.920(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(d); see Radford, 734 F.3d at 293.
Fourth, if the claimant’s impairment is severe, but it does not meet or equal one of the
presumptively disabling impairments, then the Commissioner will assess the claimant’s RFC to
determine the claimant’s “ability to meet the physical, mental, sensory, and other requirements”
of the claimant’s past relevant work.
20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), 404.1545(a)(4),
416.920(a)(4)(iv), 416.945(a)(4). RFC is a measurement of the most a claimant can do despite
his or her limitations. Hines v. Barnhart, 453 F.3d 559, 562 (4th Cir. 2006); see 20 C.F.R.
3
The ability to do basic work activities is defined as “the abilities and aptitudes necessary to do
most jobs.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1521(b), 416.921(b). These abilities and aptitudes include
(1) physical functions such as walking, standing, sitting, lifting, pushing, pulling, reaching,
carrying, or handling; (2) capacities for seeing, hearing, and speaking; (3) understanding,
carrying out, and remembering simple instructions; (4) use of judgment; (5) responding
appropriately to supervision, co-workers, and usual work situations; and (6) dealing with changes
in a routine work setting. Id. §§ 404.1521(b)(1)-(6), 416.921(b)(1)-(6); see Yuckert, 482 U.S. at
141, 107 S. Ct. at 2291.
4
§§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1).
The claimant is responsible for providing evidence the
Commissioner will use to make a finding as to the claimant’s RFC, but the Commissioner is
responsible for developing the claimant’s “complete medical history, including arranging for a
consultative examination(s) if necessary, and making every reasonable effort to help [the
claimant] get medical reports from [the claimant’s] own medical sources.”
20 C.F.R.
§§ 404.1545(a)(3), 416.945(a)(3). The Commissioner also will consider certain non-medical
evidence and other evidence listed in the regulations. See id. If a claimant retains the RFC to
perform past relevant work, then the claimant is not disabled.
Id. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv),
416.920(a)(4)(iv).
Fifth, if the claimant’s RFC as determined in step four will not allow the claimant to
perform past relevant work, then the burden shifts to the Commissioner to prove that there is
other work that the claimant can do, given the claimant’s RFC as determined at step four, age,
education, and work experience. See Hancock v. Astrue, 667 F.3d 470, 472-73 (4th Cir. 2012).
The Commissioner must prove not only that the claimant’s RFC will allow the claimant to make
an adjustment to other work, but also that the other work exists in significant numbers in the
national economy.
See Walls, 296 F.3d at 290; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v),
416.920(a)(4)(v). If the claimant can make an adjustment to other work that exists in significant
numbers in the national economy, then the Commissioner will find that the claimant is not
disabled. If the claimant cannot make an adjustment to other work, then the Commissioner will
find that the claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v).
5
III
Substantial Evidence Standard
The Court reviews an ALJ’s decision to determine whether the ALJ applied the correct
legal standards and whether the factual findings are supported by substantial evidence. See
Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir. 1996). In other words, the issue before the Court “is
not whether [Plaintiff] is disabled, but whether the ALJ’s finding that [Plaintiff] is not disabled is
supported by substantial evidence and was reached based upon a correct application of the
relevant law.” Id. The Court’s review is deferential, as “[t]he findings of the Commissioner of
Social Security as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive.” 42
U.S.C. § 405(g). Under this standard, substantial evidence is less than a preponderance but is
enough that a reasonable mind would find it adequate to support the Commissioner’s conclusion.
See Hancock, 667 F.3d at 472; see also Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401, 91 S. Ct.
1420, 1427 (1971).
In evaluating the evidence in an appeal of a denial of benefits, the court does “not
conduct a de novo review of the evidence,” Smith v. Schweiker, 795 F.2d 343, 345 (4th Cir.
1986), or undertake to reweigh conflicting evidence, make credibility determinations, or
substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner. Hancock, 667 F.3d at 472. Rather, “[t]he
duty to resolve conflicts in the evidence rests with the ALJ, not with a reviewing court.” Smith v.
Chater, 99 F.3d 635, 638 (4th Cir. 1996). When conflicting evidence allows reasonable minds to
differ as to whether a claimant is disabled, the responsibility for that decision falls on the ALJ.
Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650, 653 (4th Cir. 2005) (per curiam).
6
IV
Discussion
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to evaluate properly his impairments at step three of
the sequential evaluation process. Pl.’s Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. 3-5, ECF No. 16-1. Plaintiff
further contends that the ALJ erroneously assessed his RFC contrary to Social Security Ruling4
(“SSR”) 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184 (July 2, 1996). Id. at 5-12. Plaintiff maintains that the ALJ
failed to perform properly a function-by-function assessment of his ability to perform the
physical and mental demands of work. Id. at 7. In particular, he contends that the ALJ erred in
not finding his venous stasis dermatitis to be a severe impairment, the ALJ failed to address his
impairments involving his right lower extremity, the ALJ failed to consider properly his obesity,
and the ALJ did not consider the combination of his impairments. Id. at 8-12. For the reasons
that follow, Plaintiff’s contentions are unavailing.
A.
ALJ’s Step-Two Determination
Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred because she did not find that his venous stasis
dermatitis was a severe impairment. Id. at 8. Plaintiff, however,
misunderstands the purpose of step two in the analysis. Step two is merely a
threshold determination meant to screen out weak claims. It is not meant to
identify the impairments that should be taken into account when determining the
RFC. In fact, “[i]n assessing RFC, the adjudicator must consider limitations and
restrictions imposed by all of an individual’s impairments, even those that are not
‘severe.’” The RFC therefore should be exactly the same regardless of whether
certain impairments are considered “severe” or not.
4
Social Security Rulings are “final opinions and orders and statements of policy and
interpretations” that the Social Security Administration has adopted. 20 C.F.R. § 402.35(b)(1).
Once published, these rulings are binding on all components of the Social Security
Administration. Heckler v. Edwards, 465 U.S. 870, 873 n.3, 104 S. Ct. 1532, 1534 n.3 (1984);
20 C.F.R. § 402.35(b)(1). “While they do not have the force of law, they are entitled to
deference unless they are clearly erroneous or inconsistent with the law.” Pass, 65 F.3d at 1204
n.3.
7
Buck v. Berryhill, 869 F.3d 1040, 1048-49 (9th Cir. 2017) (alteration in original) (citations
omitted). “Moreover, step two was decided in [Plaintiff’s] favor . . . . He could not possibly
have been prejudiced. Any alleged error is therefore harmless and cannot be the basis for a
remand.” Id. at 1049 (citing Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1115 (9th Cir. 2012)); accord
Smith v. Colvin, 821 F.3d 1264, 1266-67 (10th Cir. 2016); Tuggerson-Brown v. Comm’r of Soc.
Sec., 572 F. App’x 949, 951 (11th Cir. 2014) (per curiam). Plaintiff’s contention that the ALJ
erred at step two by failing to determine that his venous stasis dermatitis was a severe
impairment thus is unavailing.
B.
ALJ’s Step-Three Determination
Plaintiff then maintains that, in finding at step three that his impairments did not meet or
medically equal an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1, the ALJ erred in not
finding that his stasis dermatitis met the requirements of Listing 4.11 found in 20 C.F.R. pt. 404,
subpt. P, app. 1 § 4.11.
“The Social Security Administration has promulgated regulations
containing ‘listings of physical and mental impairments which, if met, are conclusive on the
issue of disability.’ A claimant is entitled to a conclusive presumption that he is impaired if he
can show that his condition ‘meets or equals the listed impairments.’” Radford, 734 F.3d at 291
(citation omitted); see 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1. “[A]n ALJ only has to identify a
listing and compare the evidence to the listing requirements where there is ample evidence to
suggest that the listing is met.” Sterrette v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., Civil No. SAG-15-1850,
2016 WL 953225, at *2 (D. Md. Mar. 11, 2016) (citing cases).
Listing 4.11 provides the following:
Chronic venous insufficiency of a lower extremity with incompetency or
obstruction of the deep venous system and one of the following:
8
A.
Extensive brawny edema (see 4.00G3) involving at least two-thirds of the
leg between the ankle and knee or the distal one-third of the lower extremity
between the ankle and hip.
OR
B.
Superficial varicosities, stasis dermatitis, and either recurrent ulceration or
persistent ulceration that has not healed following at least 3 months of prescribed
treatment.
20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1 § 4.11.
As the Commissioner points out, Plaintiff points to no evidence of “chronic venous
insufficiency of a lower extremity with incompetency or obstruction of the deep venous system.”
Def.’s Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. 5, ECF No. 19-1. Further, at step two, the ALJ found
evidence of normal circulation (R. at 13), militating against a finding of incompetency or
obstruction of the deep venous system. “[A]n ALJ’s findings at other steps of the sequential
process may provide a proper basis for upholding a step three conclusion that a claimant’s
impairments do not meet or equal any listed impairment.” Fischer-Ross v. Barnhart, 431 F.3d
729, 733 (10th Cir. 2005). Absent ample evidence suggesting that Listing 4.11 is met, Plaintiff’s
argument in this regard is unavailing, and substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding at step
three of the sequential evaluation process.
C.
ALJ’s RFC Assessment
SSR 96-8p explains how adjudicators should assess RFC and instructs that the RFC
“assessment must first identify the individual’s functional limitations or
restrictions and assess his or her work-related abilities on a function-by-function
basis, including the functions” listed in the regulations. “Only after that may
[residual functional capacity] be expressed in terms of the exertional levels of
work, sedentary, light, medium, heavy, and very heavy.” The Ruling further
explains that the residual functional capacity “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).”
9
Mascio v. Colvin, 780 F.3d 632, 636 (4th Cir. 2015) (alteration in original) (footnote omitted)
(citations omitted). The Fourth Circuit has held, however, that a per se rule requiring remand
when the ALJ does not perform an explicit function-by-function analysis “is inappropriate given
that remand would prove futile in cases where the ALJ does not discuss functions that are
‘irrelevant or uncontested.’” Id. (quoting Cichocki v. Astrue, 729 F.3d 172, 177 (2d Cir. 2013)
(per curiam)). Rather, remand may be appropriate “where an ALJ fails to assess a claimant’s
capacity to perform relevant functions, despite contradictory evidence in the record, or where
other inadequacies in the ALJ’s analysis frustrate meaningful review.” Id. (quoting Cichocki,
729 F.3d at 177). The court in Mascio concluded that remand was appropriate because it was
“left to guess about how the ALJ arrived at his conclusions on [the claimant’s] ability to perform
relevant functions” because the ALJ had “said nothing about [the claimant’s] ability to perform
them for a full workday,” despite conflicting evidence as to the claimant’s RFC that the ALJ did
not address. Id. at 637; see Monroe v. Colvin, 826 F.3d 176, 187-88 (4th Cir. 2016) (remanding
because ALJ erred in not determining claimant’s RFC using function-by-function analysis; ALJ
erroneously expressed claimant’s RFC first and then concluded that limitations caused by
claimant’s impairments were consistent with that RFC).
Here, Plaintiff contends that the ALJ failed to address his impairments involving his right
lower extremity. Pl.’s Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. 8, ECF No. 16-1. However, “there is no rigid
requirement that the ALJ specifically refer to every piece of evidence in [her] decision.” Reid v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 769 F.3d 861, 865 (4th Cir. 2014) (quoting Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d
1206, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam)). “The Commissioner, through the ALJ and Appeals
Council, stated that the whole record was considered, and, absent evidence to the contrary, we
take her at her word.” Id. In any event, Plaintiff “has failed to point to any specific piece of
10
evidence not considered by the Commissioner that might have changed the outcome of his
disability claim.” Id.; see Def.’s Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. 8-9, ECF No. 19-1 (explaining why
any error in ALJ’s consideration of Plaintiff’s foot impairments was harmless). Plaintiff’s
contention in this regard also is unavailing.
Plaintiff finally maintains that the ALJ failed to consider properly his obesity past step
three of the sequential evaluation process. Pl.’s Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. 8-12, ECF No. 16-1.
As the Commissioner notes, however, the ALJ stated that the RFC “has been assessed based on
all the evidence with consideration of the limitations and restrictions imposed by the combined
effects of all [Plaintiff’s] medically determinable impairments as required by SSR 96-8p.” R. at
14. The ALJ also acknowledged SSR 02-1p when she considered Plaintiff’s obesity. R. at 13.
Thus, Plaintiff’s argument that the ALJ failed to consider his severe impairment of obesity in
combination with his other impairments is without merit. See, e.g., Reid, 769 F.3d at 865-66.
In sum, substantial evidence supports the decision of the ALJ, who applied the correct
legal standards here.
Thus, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED,
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED, and the Commissioner’s final decision is
AFFIRMED.
V
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 19)
is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 16) is DENIED. The
Commissioner’s final decision is AFFIRMED. A separate order will issue.
Date: September 26, 2018
/s/
Thomas M. DiGirolamo
United States Magistrate Judge
11
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?