Berg v. Astrue
Filing
9
ORDER and OPINION affirming final decision. Signed on 09/12/2011 by District Judge Ortrie D. Smith. (Will-Fees, Eva)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION
AUSTIN R. BERG, III,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 10-1238-CV-W-ODS
ORDER AND OPINION AFFIRMING FINAL DECISION
Pending is Plaintiff's request for review of the final decision of the Commissioner
of Social Security denying her disability application. The Commissioner's decision is
affirmed.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is a 47-year-old man with a work history as a bartender, car salesman,
and truck driver. He claims he has been disabled since October 25, 2007, when he
injured his back while working. He smokes 1/2 a pack of cigarettes per day. The ALJ
determined Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: mild degenerative disc
disease of the lumbar spine; diabetes mellitus; hypertension; sleep apnea; obesity;
minimal degenerative changes of the right hand; and depression.
During the ALJ’s hearing, the ALJ described to the vocational expert (VE) a
hypothetical worker able to do the full range of light work except for several limitations,
including the need to have an at-will sit/stand option. The VE identified three jobs the
hypothetical worker could perform: cashier; photocopy machine operator; and bench
assembler.1
1
Plaintiff asserts the VE “assum[ed] the hypothetical person was standing at
least six hours or alternating sitting and standing in the other two hours – at the work
station.” If Plaintiff meant to write that the VE assumed the hypothetical worker was
In his decision denying benefits, the ALJ’s residual functional capacity (RFC)
assessment reflected abilities similar to those of the hypothetical worker described at
the hearing – able to do light work but with several limitations, including the need for an
at-will sit/stand option. But in the RFC assessment, the ALJ also stated Plaintiff
retained the capacity to sit for 6 hours in an 8-hour day, stand for 4 hours in an 8-hour
day, and walk for 2 hours in an 8-hour day. Based on the jobs identified by the VE at
the hearing, the ALJ concluded there were a significant number of jobs in the local and
national economies Plaintiff could perform, precluding a finding of disability.
II. DISCUSSION
“The Social Security Act provides for judicial review of final decisions of the
Commissioner, which is limited to determining whether substantial evidence in the
record as a whole supports the Commissioner's decision, and whether the
Commissioner correctly applied the relevant legal standards.” Mason v. Barnhart, 406
F.3d 962, 964 (8th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). Substantial evidence is defined as
“relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.” Martise v. Astrue, 641 F.3d 909, 920-21 (8th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted).
“The court must . . . take into consideration the weight of the evidence in the record and
apply a balancing test to evidence which is contradictory.” Id. at 921 (citation omitted).
Plaintiff raised two issues in his opening brief, but he later expressly abandoned
the second issue. That leaves the first issue: whether the ALJ formulated an RFC
assessment that contained more restrictive limitations than the hypothetical worker
described to the VE. “‘A hypothetical question must precisely describe a claimant's
impairments so that the vocational expert may accurately assess whether jobs exist for
the claimant.’” Howard v. Massanari, 255 F.3d 577, 581-82 (8th Cir. 2001) (citation
omitted).
standing for 6 hours and sitting/standing the other 2 hours, the hearing transcript does
not support this assertion.
2
Both the ALJ’s hypothetical presented to the VE and the RFC assessment
included the ability to do light work with an at-will sit/stand option. The relevant
difference between the RFC assessment and the hypothetical was that the RFC
assessment stated Plaintiff could sit 6 hours in an 8-hour day, stand 4 hours in an 8hour day, and walk 2 hours in an 8-hour day, while the hypothetical did not state how
long the worker could do these activities.
Plaintiff’s argument is twofold. First, he contends that the addition of the 2-hour
walking limitation in the RFC assessment is significant because light-work jobs are
generally performed at a work station.2 Plaintiff asks, “How can he perform a light job
. . . if he is walking around?” The flaw in this contention is that walking was identified as
an (albeit limited) ability of Plaintiff’s, not a need. There was nothing in the ALJ’s RFC
that required Plaintiff to walk around. Plaintiff’s first contention is rejected.
Second, Plaintiff contends the ALJ’s decision should be reversed because the
hypothetical did not include the limitation of standing only 4 hours per day. The
Commissioner argues that the failure to mention how long the worker could stand in the
hypothetical is not reversible error because the hypothetical included the need for an atwill sit/stand option.3 Plaintiff counters that the 4-hour standing limitation is inconsistent
with the option to sit/stand at will: “If Berg can only stand 4 hours a day – he does not
have the ability to ‘sit/stand’ at will” (emphasis added).
Plaintiff again is confusing abilities with needs. The ALJ did not describe a
hypothetical worker with the ability to sit/stand at will; this was a need. The total time
Plaintiff can sit (6 hours) and stand (4 hours) is 10 hours, which means that an 8-hour-aday job with an at-will sit/stand option can accommodate him. The length of time
2
Plaintiff also argues walking and standing are different activities. Although the
Court is not entirely sure, Plaintiff appears to have done this to further highlight that the
ALJ’s hypothetical did not mention walking in any way (while standing was addressed
with the sit/stand option). The Commissioner does not dispute this point.
3
Plaintiff also argues the Commissioner’s argument is an inappropriate posthoc rationalization. But the Commissioner is simply arguing that the hypothetical
described Plaintiff’s impairments with sufficient precision. The Court would not expect
this argument to first appear in the ALJ’s decision.
3
Plaintiff can sit or stand does not affect his ability to do the jobs identified by the VE.
Plaintiff’s argument is rejected.
III. CONCLUSION
The Commissioner’s decision is affirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Ortrie D. Smith
ORTRIE D. SMITH, SENIOR JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DATE: September 12, 2011
4
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?