Sanders v. Astrue et al
ORDER MODIFYING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 21 Report and Recommendation. IT IS ORDERED THAT:1.Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 13] is GRANTED as to remand;2.Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc No. 18] is DENIED;3.Th e case is REMANDED to the Social Security Administration pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for adjudication of Plaintiffs claim of disability based on degenerative joint disease consistent with this Order.LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on May 11, 2012. (slf)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Elaine Deanne Sanders,
Civil No. 11-1356 (JNE/JJG)
Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of
Plaintiff Elaine Sanders seeks judicial review of the denial of her application for Social
Security supplemental security income (SSI) disability benefits. The parties brought crossmotions for summary judgment. The case was referred to the Honorable Jeanne J. Graham,
United States Magistrate Judge, who, in a Report and Recommendation dated April 16, 2012,
recommended the case be remanded to the Social Security Administration (SSA). Defendant
objects to the Report and Recommendation. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the
record. See D. Minn. LR 72.2(b).
The magistrate judge recommended remand for the SSA to determine three issues.
Defendant argues there is no need to remand on any ground. First, Defendant argues that the
District Court can make a determination, based on the record, as to the severity of Plaintiff’s
degenerative joint disease. Plaintiff’s 2007 application for benefits included a claim of disability
due to degenerative joint disease. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) did not make any
findings of fact or conclusions of law regarding degenerative joint disease in his written decision.
Nor did he question Plaintiff about her claimed degenerative joint disease during the hearing.
The Report and Recommendation summarizes the evidence in the record concerning Plaintiff’s
degenerative joint disease. (Report and Recommendation 19, ECF No. 21). Additionally, the
Court notes that on occasion Plaintiff used a knee brace, walker, and crutches. (Administrative R.
372, 375, 457, ECF No. 10:9). The record contains evidence that Plaintiff suffers from an
impairment, but as Defendant points out, in order for that impairment to qualify as a disability, it
must be severe. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii), (c). An impairment is severe if it “significantly
limits [the plaintiff’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” Id. at §§ 416.920(c),
416.921. Although the Court has the authority to enter a judgment “affirming, modifying, or
reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, with or without remanding the
cause for a rehearing,” the ALJ is in a better position to make a determination as to the severity
of Plaintiff’s impairment. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); see also Travis v. Astrue, 477 F.3d 1037, 1042
(8th Cir. 2007) (“This court will not substitute its opinion for the ALJ’s, who is in a better
position to gauge credibility and resolve conflicts in evidence.”). Defendant may well be correct
that Plaintiff cannot prove a “severe” impairment based on degenerative joint disease. See Valley
v. Astrue, No. 4:10CV01393, 2011 WL 5999260, at *2 (E.D. Ark., Nov. 29, 2011) (finding
degenerative joint disease in a plaintiff’s knee to be a non-severe impairment). But the ALJ can
better inquire into and determine whether Plaintiff’s degenerative joint disease “significantly
limits” her ability to work. It is also unclear whether Plaintiff’s alleged degenerative joint disease
affects her residual functional capacity (RFC).1 For these reasons, the Court chooses not to delve
into this untouched claim and instead remands the issue to the SSA.
Next, Defendant argues that the ALJ’s failure to include the words “brief” and
“superficial” in his description of Plaintiff’s ability to interact with coworkers is not a reason for
Residual functional capacity is a determination made by an ALJ as to “the most a
claimant can do despite her limitations.” Moore v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 520, 523 (8th Cir. 2009)
(citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(1)).
remand. The ALJ used the term “occasional” to describe Plaintiff’s limitations on interaction
with others. The magistrate judge’s point that it is possible for a person to have occasional but
lengthy and in-depth interactions with coworkers is well taken. The Court, however, finds that
the ALJ’s decision regarding Plaintiff’s recommended interaction with coworkers was based on
substantial evidence. See Gonzales v. Barnhart, 465 F.3d 890, 894 (8th Cir. 2006). The ALJ
noted that Plaintiff attends church and plays cards with others, and he drew the conclusion that
this evidence indicates she is capable of some social interaction. The ALJ’s choice in using the
word “occasional” rather than “brief” and “superficial” is supported by substantial evidence and
adequately balances the evidence in the record. Further, the job descriptions for laundry worker
and hand packager—the positions for which the ALJ found Plaintiff qualified—do not indicate
that more than “brief” and “superficial” contact with coworkers would be required. See
Dictionary of Occupational Titles, DICOT § 920.587-018, 361.684-014, available at 1991 WL
672983. Thus, the Court does not disturb the ALJ’s decision on this issue.
Lastly, Defendant argues the ALJ’s finding as to Plaintiff’s credibility is supported with
substantial evidence and does not require remand. The ALJ found that Plaintiff demonstrated a
lack of effort in finding work and that this reduced her credibility. The magistrate judge
expressed concern that the ALJ had not considered that this lack of effort could be because
Plaintiff, prior to her incarceration, had been receiving SSI disability benefits for as long as she
could remember. The magistrate judge attributes Plaintiff’s lack of effort in finding work to her
disabled status rather than a lack of motivation. This is a reasonable conclusion based on the
evidence in the record, but so is the ALJ’s conclusion that Plaintiff lacked motivation to find
work. Where the evidence supports two contradictory findings and one of them is that reached by
the ALJ, a reviewing district court should uphold the ALJ decision. Goff v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d
785, 789 (8th Cir. 2005). The receipt of SSI benefits does not necessarily preclude a recipient
from working, rather the receipt of benefits merely imposes restrictions and reporting
requirements on the benefits recipient. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1592, 404.1599, 404.401a. Indeed,
Plaintiff did have a few part time temporary positions over the years. Moreover, Plaintiff’s lack
of effort in finding work was merely one factor the ALJ considered. He stated in his
determination of Plaintiff’s RFC that he placed the most weight on the opinions of a psychiatrist
and psychologist who each had the opportunity to review Plaintiff’s medical records. The ALJ’s
conclusion that Plaintiff’s credibility should be reduced due to her lack of effort in finding work
and its effect on the overall determination of her RFC is substantially supported by evidence in
the record. The Court finds no need to remand this issue to the SSA.
Based on its review of the record, and for the reasons stated, the Court modifies the
Report and Recommendation [Docket No. 21] as to the reasons for remand and otherwise adopts
the Report and Recommendation.
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 13] is GRANTED as to remand;
2. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc No. 18] is DENIED;
3. The case is REMANDED to the Social Security Administration pursuant to sentence
four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for adjudication of Plaintiff’s claim of disability based on
degenerative joint disease consistent with this Order.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: May 11, 2012
s/ Joan N. Ericksen
JOAN N. ERICKSEN
United States District Judge
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?