Baldwin v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 12

OPINION; signed by Magistrate Judge Ray Kent (Magistrate Judge Ray Kent, jem)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

DANIEL BALDWIN,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 1:14-cv-1172
Hon. Ray Kent

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
/
OPINION
Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of
a final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (Commissioner) denying
his claim for disability insurance benefits (DIB).
Plaintiff was born in 1952. PageID.174. He completed high school and had past
employment as a machine operator, an international representative for a union, and a legal assistant.
PageID.177-178. He alleged a disability onset date of December 12, 2011. PageID.174. Plaintiff
identified his disabling condition as stage three kidney disease. PageID.177. The administrative law
judge (ALJ) reviewed plaintiff’s claim de novo and entered a written decision denying benefits on
July 19, 2013. PageID.37-43. This decision, which was later approved by the Appeals Council, has
become the final decision of the Commissioner and is now before the Court for review.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
This court’s review of the Commissioner’s decision is typically focused on
determining whether the Commissioner's findings are supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C.

§405(g); McKnight v. Sullivan, 927 F.2d 241 (6th Cir. 1990). “Substantial evidence is more than
a scintilla of evidence but less than a preponderance; it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Cutlip v. Secretary of Health & Human
Services, 25 F.3d 284, 286 (6th Cir. 1994). A determination of substantiality of the evidence must
be based upon the record taken as a whole. Young v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 925
F.2d 146 (6th Cir. 1990).
The scope of this review is limited to an examination of the record only. This Court
does not review the evidence de novo, make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence.
Brainard v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 889 F.2d 679, 681 (6th Cir. 1989). The fact that
the record also contains evidence which would have supported a different conclusion does not
undermine the Commissioner’s decision so long as there is substantial support for that decision in
the record. Willbanks v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 847 F.2d 301, 303 (6th Cir. 1988).
Even if the reviewing court would resolve the dispute differently, the Commissioner’s decision must
stand if it is supported by substantial evidence. Young, 925 F.2d at 147.
A claimant must prove that he suffers from a disability in order to be entitled to
benefits. A disability is established by showing that the claimant cannot engage in substantial
gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can
be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period
of not less than twelve months. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1505; Abbott v. Sullivan, 905 F.2d 918, 923
(6th Cir. 1990). In applying the above standard, the Commissioner has developed a five-step
analysis:
The Social Security Act requires the Secretary to follow a “five-step
sequential process” for claims of disability. First, plaintiff must demonstrate that she
2

is not currently engaged in “substantial gainful activity” at the time she seeks
disability benefits. Second, plaintiff must show that she suffers from a “severe
impairment” in order to warrant a finding of disability. A “severe impairment” is one
which “significantly limits . . . physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.”
Third, if plaintiff is not performing substantial gainful activity, has a severe
impairment that is expected to last for at least twelve months, and the impairment
meets a listed impairment, plaintiff is presumed to be disabled regardless of age,
education or work experience. Fourth, if the plaintiff's impairment does not prevent
her from doing her past relevant work, plaintiff is not disabled. For the fifth and final
step, even if the plaintiff’s impairment does prevent her from doing her past relevant
work, if other work exists in the national economy that plaintiff can perform, plaintiff
is not disabled.
Heston v. Commissioner of Social Security, 245 F.3d 528, 534 (6th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted).
The claimant bears the burden of proving the existence and severity of limitations
caused by her impairments and the fact that she is precluded from performing her past relevant work
through step four. Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security, 336 F.3d 469, 474 (6th Cir. 2003).
However, at step five of the inquiry, “the burden shifts to the Commissioner to identify a significant
number of jobs in the economy that accommodate the claimant’s residual functional capacity
(determined at step four) and vocational profile.” Id. If it is determined that a claimant is or is not
disabled at any point in the evaluation process, further review is not necessary. Mullis v. Bowen, 861
F.2d 991, 993 (6th Cir. 1988).
II. ALJ’S DECISION
Plaintiff’s claim failed at the fourth step of the evaluation. At the first step, the ALJ
found that he had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset date of December
12, 2011, and that he met the insured status requirements of the Act through December 31, 2016.
PageID.39. At the second step, the ALJ found that plaintiff had severe impairments of chronic renal
failure and degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine. Id. At the third step, the ALJ found that

3

plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or equaled the
requirements of the Listing of Impairments in 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1. PageID.40.
The ALJ decided at the fourth step that:
[T]he claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform sedentary work as
defined in 20 C.F.R. 404.1567(a) except occasionally climb ramps and stairs;
occasionally climb ladders, ropes and scaffolds, balance, stoop, kneel, crouch and
crawl; limited to no overhead reaching with the bilateral upper extremities; and
requires the ability to stretch near the workstation for a few minutes every hour.
PageID.40-41. The ALJ also found that plaintiff was capable of performing his past relevant work
as a union representative and legal assistant, work which does not require the performance of
work-related activities precluded by his residual functional capacity (RFC).

PageID.43.

Accordingly, the ALJ found that plaintiff has not been under a disability, as defined in the Social
Security Act, from December 12, 2011 (the alleged onset date) through July 19, 2013 (the date of
the decision). PageID.43.
III. ANALYSIS
Plaintiff did not set forth a Statement of Errors as directed by the Court. See Notice
(docket no. 7). The Court construes the brief as raising the following issue:
The ALJ erred in evaluating plaintiff’s credibility.1
“[C]redibility determinations with respect to subjective complaints of pain rest with
the ALJ.” Siterlet v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 823 F. 2d 918, 920 (6th Cir. 1987).
An ALJ may discount a claimant’s credibility where the ALJ “finds contradictions among the
medical records, claimant’s testimony, and other evidence.” Walters, 127 F.3d at 531. “It [i]s for

1

Arguments which are not related to this issue or which fail to articulate as to how the facts and
findings in this matter apply to the cited authority are deemed waived.

4

the [Commissioner] and his examiner, as the fact-finders, to pass upon the credibility of the
witnesses and weigh and evaluate their testimony.” Heston, 245 F.3d at 536., quoting Myers v.
Richardson, 471 F.2d 1265, 1267 (6th Cir. 1972). The court “may not disturb” an ALJ’s credibility
determination “absent [a] compelling reason.” Smith v. Halter, 307 F.3d 377, 379 (6th Cir. 2001).
The threshold for overturning an ALJ’s credibility determination on appeal is so high, that in recent
years, the Sixth Circuit has expressed the opinion that “[t]he ALJ’s credibility findings are
unchallengeable,” Payne v. Commissioner of Social Security, 402 Fed. Appx. 109, 113 (6th Cir.
2010), and that “[o]n appeal, we will not disturb a credibility determination made by the ALJ, the
finder of fact . . . [w]e will not try the case anew, resolve conflicts in the evidence, or decide
questions of credibility.” Sullenger v. Commissioner of Social Security, 255 Fed. Appx. 988, 995
(6th Cir. 2007). Nevertheless, an ALJ’s credibility determinations regarding subjective complaints
must be reasonable and supported by substantial evidence. Rogers v. Commissioner of Social
Security, 486 F.3d 234, 249 (6th Cir. 2007).
The ALJ summarized plaintiff’s alleged symptoms as follows:
The claimant testified due to his kidney disease he experiences fatigue, has
muscle spasms and has difficulty sleeping, which ultimately caused him to stop
working in late 2011. Moreover, he stated he has numbness in his left leg and right
foot and that he has shooting pain. In addition, the claimant stated he has shooting
pains and has flare-ups every day. Further, he alleged due to his back pain he has to
lie down on the floor. Moreover, he testified his pain and fatigue limits his ability
to do household activities and chores. Additionally, he stated he has difficulty sitting,
standing, or walking for even short periods of time and problems lifting overhead.
PageID.41.
The ALJ found that plaintiff’s chronic renal failure led to his complaints of fatigue.
PageID.42. Plaintiff was hospitalized in May 2011 for chronic renal insufficiency. PageID.42, 246.

5

After his hospital admission, the ALJ observed that there was no evidence in the record referencing
substantial treatment or complaints related to the kidney failure, except for fatigue. PageID.42.
The ALJ also found that plaintiff had a history of lower back pain. PageID.39. The
ALJ noted that plaintiff’s treatment for his back did not start until 2013, more than one year after
his alleged disability onset date. PageID.42. Patrick Ronan, M.D., treated plaintiff’s back pain.
PageID.39. Based on an MRI from May 2013, Dr. Ronan diagnosed L5 radiculopathy, and
recommended selective nerve block of L5. PageID.39-40, 357-361. The ALJ addressed plaintiff’s
history of back pain as follows:
Dr. Ronan’s report confirmed the claimant had only two programs of physical
therapy, he had not participated in pain management, while he was referred for nerve
block therapy, there is no indication in the record, the claimant actual underwent the
procedure. Additionally, he had no surgical intervention nor did he require the use
of an assistive device for ambulation. Further, the claimant testified he was able to
golf, mow the lawn with a riding lawn mower, and work out at the gym within the
last year.
PageID.42. In addition, the record reflects that when visiting Dr. Ronan on May 14, 2013, plaintiff
rated the intensity of his back pain as only a “2” on a scale of 10 and ambulated with a normal gait.
PageID.357.
Based on this record, the ALJ found that plaintiff was “capable of performing
sedentary work and can occasionally climb ramps and stairs; occasionally climb ladders, ropes and
scaffolds, balance, stoop, kneel, crouch and crawl.” PageID.42. The ALJ further stated that she
accommodated “[plaintiff’s] complaints of fatigue, upper back pain and stiffness with extended
sitting and finds him limited to no overhead reaching with the bilateral upper extremities, with the
ability to stretch near the workstation for a few minutes every hour.” Id. There is no compelling
reason to disturb the ALJ’s credibility determination in this case. Smith, 307 F.3d at 379.
6

Accordingly, plaintiff’s claim of error is denied.
IV. CONCLUSION
The ALJ’s determination is supported by substantial evidence. The Commissioner’s
decision will be AFFIRMED pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). A judgment consistent with this
opinion will be issued forthwith.

Date: March 21, 2016

/s/ Ray Kent
Ray Kent
United States Magistrate Judge

7