SALTERS-FELDMAN v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER that the decision of the Administrative Law Judge is VACATED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings; Clerk of Court shall close this case. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 4/26/2019. (tf, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE

LAWANNA SALTERS-FELDMAN,
Civil No.

Plaintiff,

18—3672

fRMB)

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

v.

COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.

BtTh4B,

United States District Judge:
This matter comes before the Court upon an appeal by

Plaintiff Lawanna Salters—Feldman from a denial of social security
disability benefits on September 28,

2017 which was upheld by the

Appeals Council on January 23,

[Record of Proceedings,

“R.P.”,

p.

2018.

1—5]

For the reasons set forth below, the Court vacates the
decision of the Administrative Law Judge

(“AU”)

and remands for

proceedings consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order’s
reasoning.

I.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When reviewing a final decision of an AU
disability benefits,

with regard to

a court must uphold the AU’s

factual

decisions if they are supported by “substantial evidence.” Knepp
1

v.

204 F.3d 78,

Apfel,

83

(3d Cir.

2000);

§ 405(g),

42 U.S.C.

“Substantial evidence” means “‘more than a mere

1383(c) (3).

It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind

scintilla.

might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’” Richardson v.
Perales,

305 U.S.

NLRB,
427

402 U.S.

(3d Cir.

389,

197,

229

(quoting Cons.

(1971)

401

(1938));

Plummer v.

Edison Co.

Apfel,

186 F.3d 422,

1999)
the court

In addition to the “substantial evidence” inquiry,
must also determine whether the AU
standards.
1983);

See Friedberg v.

Sykes v.

Apfel,

applied the correct legal

Schweiker,

228 F.3d 259,

721 F.2d 445,

262

Court’s review of legal issues is plenary.
(citing Schaudeck v.
Cir.

v.

Comm’r of Soc.

Sec.,

(3d Cir.
Sykes,

(3d Cir.

447

2000)

The

.

228 F.3d at 262

181 F.3d 429,

431

(3d

1999)
The Social Security Act defines “disability” as the inability

“to engage in any 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.” 42
U.S.C.

§ 1382c(a) (3) (A)

.

The Act further states,

individual shall be determined to be under a
[Am
disability only if his physical or mental impairment
or impairments are of such severity that he 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 the national economy, regardless of
2

whether such work exists in the immediate area in
which he lives,
or whether a specific job vacancy
exists for him, or whether he would be hired if he
applied for work.
42 U.s.c.

§ 1382c(a) (3) (B)

The commissioner has promulgated a five—step,
analysis for evaluating a claimant’s disability,
c.F.R.

§ 404.1520(a) (4) (i—v)

.

In Plummer,

sequential

as outlined in 20

186 F.3d at 428,

the

Third circuit described the commissioner’s inquiry at each step of
this analysis:
In step one, the commissioner must determine whether the
claimant is currently engaging in substantial gainful
If a claimant is found to
activity. 20 c.F.R. § 1520(a).
be engaged in substantial activity, the disability claim
will be denied. Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.s. 137, 140 (1987)
In step two, the commissioner must determine whether the
20
claimant is suffering from a severe impairment.
c.E’.R. § 404.1520(c)
If the claimant fails to show that
[his]
impairments are “severe,” she is ineligible for
disability benefits.
.

In step three,
the commissioner compares the medical
impairment
to a
list
of
evidence
the
claimant’s
of
impairments presumed severe enough to preclude any gainful
If a claimant does not
work. 20 c.F.R. § 404.1520(d).
suffer from a listed impairment or its equivalent, the
analysis proceeds to steps four and five.
step four requires the AU to consider whether the claimant
retains the residual functional capacity to perform her
past relevant work. 20 c.f.R. § 404.1520(d). The claimant
bears the burden of demonstrating an inability to return
to her past relevant work. Adorno v. Shalala, 40 F.3d 43,
If the claimant is unable to resume
46 (3d cir. 1994)
her former occupation, the evaluation moves to the final
step.
.

At this [fifth] stage,
the commissioner, who

the burden of production shifts to
must demonstrate the claimant is
3

capable of performing other available work in order to
deny a claim of disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f)
The
AU must show there are other jobs existing in significant
numbers in the national economy which the claimant can
perform, consistent with her medical impairments, age,
education, past work experience, and residual functional
capacity.
The AU
must analyze the cumulative effect of
all the claimant’s impairments in determining whether she
is capable of performing work and is not disabled. See 20
C.F.R. § 404.1523.
The AU will often seek the assistance
of a vocational expert at this fifth step. See
v. Harris, 745 F.2d 210, 218 (3d Cir. 1984)
.

II.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Court recites only the facts that are necessary to its
determination on appeal,

which is narrow.

Plaintiff was born in 1966,
alleged onset date.

[H.P.,

P.

and was 46 years old at the

28,

42,

Security Disability Benefits on July 30,
of disability of December 12,

2012.

She applied for Social

54]

2015,

[R.P.,

p.

alleging an onset
24]

A disability hearing was held via videoconference on February
2,

2017.

[H.P.,

p.

51]

the Vocational Expert.

heard testimony from Plaintiff and

The AU
[H.P.,

p.

51—85]

Plaintiff’s chief

physical complaints result from degenerative disc disease,
the AU

found to be a severe impairment.

Among other documents,

p.

28]’

the AUJ considered reports from

Doctors Nussbaum and Simpkins

1

[H.P.,

which

[Exhibits B1A and B3A],

both of whom

Plaintiff has had two back surgeries: a lumbar spine fusion at
U4—U5—Sl in 2011, and a discectomy in 2015.
[H.P., P. 324]
Plaintiff also asserts severe mental impairments, including
found were
dysthymic disorder and panic disorder, which the AU
severe impairments.
[H.P., p. 28]
4

reviewed the entire record in connection with Plaintiff’s
application.

Both doctors’

residual functional capacity

conclusions included a postural limitation of standing and walking
oniy up to four hours per standard eight-hour working day.
p.

97—99,

III.

[R.P.,

113—15]

AU’S DETERMINATION

The AU

concluded that “the claimant has not been under a

disability as defined in the Social Security Act from December 12,
2012,

through the date last insured.”
The AU

[R.P.,

p.

26]

did not include any limitation concerning standing or

walking in his residual functional capacity determination
p.

34—35],

[R.P.,

even though the AU’s written decision notes that Dr.

Nussbaum and Dr.

Simpkins included such a limitation in their

assessments of Plaintiff.
decision reads,

The relevant portion of the AU’s

in its entirety:

In terms of physical functional capacity, at the initial
determination level of administrative review, Dr. Peter
reviewed the entire record for New
Nussbaum,
M.D.,
Jersey’s disability determination agency as of March 2,
2016, and concluded in pertinent part, that the claimant
was
capable
of work at
the
light
limited
to but
exertional level defined in 20 CFR §404.1567(b), with
attendant postural restrictions and standing and walking
limited to four hours per standard eight—hour workday.
level
[Ex.
B1A.]
At
the
reconsideration
of
administrative review, Nancy Simpkins, M.D. reviewed the
entire record for New Jersey’s disability determination
agency as of March 29, 2016, and affirmed Dr. Nussbaum’s
assessments.
[Ex. B3A.] Independent assessment of the
overall record leads the undersigned to conclude that
since Dr. Nussbaum and Dr. Simpkins were familiar with
the case record developed to those points in time and
5

because, as highly qualified physicians who are also
experts in Social Security disability evaluation, they
have considerable understanding of the Social Security
disability programs and their evidentiary requirements,
their
opinions
deserve
some
weight.
20
CFR
§S404.15l3a(b) (1),
404.1527(c) (6).
The
undersigned
therefore has adopted their assessments as a baseline in
determining the claimant’s residual functional capacity.
However, while the undersigned has found the evidence
sufficient to warrant even further postural, activity,
and
environmental
restrictions,
the
evidence
is
insufficient to warrant the limitation to four hours of
standing
or
walking
per
standard
workday.
The
claimant’s admitted and demonstrated capabilities as
previously described, along with the objective findings
previously noted, warrant no further limitation beyond
that delineated above.
[H.P.,
IV.

p.

40]

ANALYSIS

Among other arguments,

Plaintiff asserts that the AU’s

decision concerning residual functional capacity is not supported
by substantial evidence because the AU
opinions of both
Brief,
the AU

p.

26;

[Dr.

Nussbuam and Dr.

Reply Brief,

p.

6)

allegedly “ignore[ed]
Simpkins]

.“

the

(Opening

The Commissioner responds that

mainly incorporated the doctors’

limitations into the

AU’s functional capacity assessment “with the exception of” the
stand/walk limitation,

which,

the Commissioner asserts,

rejected as unsupported by the record.

(Opposition Brief,

The AUJ obviously did not ignore Dr.
Simpkins’
evidence.

opinions altogether;
However,

why the AU

the AU
p.

14)

Nussbaum’s and Dr.

the written decision discusses that
chose to omit the stand/walk

limitation from his own residual functional capacity assessment,
6

when Dr.

Nussbaum’s and Dr.

such a limitation,
Indeed,

Simpkins’

assessments both included

is not adequately explained in the decision.

the written decision could be viewed as being somewhat

internally inconsistent insofar as the decision states that it
“adopts” the doctors’

“assessments as a baseline in determining

the claimant’s residual functional capacity” but then materially
departs from that “baseline” by omitting a significant postural
limitation.
“The Third Circuit has held that access to the Commissioner’s
reasoning is

[] essential to a meaningful court review.” Sanford

v.

Comm’r of Soc.

*2

(D.N.J.

776
f.

Mar.

(3d Cir.
Supp.

the AU

Sec.,

28,

1978));

3d 440,

456

No.

CIV.

13—0366 NLH,

2014) (citing Gober v.
see also Stockett v.
(D.N.J.

2014 WL 1294710,

Matthews,

at

574 F.2d 772,

Comm’r of Soc.

2016) (“The Third Circuit

Sec.,

216

‘requires

to set forth the reasons for his decision.’”) (quoting

Burnett v.

Comm’r of Soc.

2000)) (Bumb,

D.J.).

Sec.

Admin.,

220 F.3d 112,

123

(3d Cir.

The Court cannot determine on the present

record whether the AU’s decision was supported by substantial
evidence because the Court presently cannot determine what other
evidence in the record led the AU
postural limitation found by Dr.
may well be the case that,
same decision.

to reject the stand/walk
Nussbaum and Dr.

upon remand,

At this juncture,

Simpkins.

the AUJ will arrive at the

however,

the AU

must provide

additional explanation citing to specific record evidence in
7

It

support of the decision.
of the AU

As such,

the Court vacates the decision

and remands for proceedings consistent with the above

analysis.
ACCORDINGLY,

it is on this

2kft

day of April,

2019,

ORDERED that the decision of the Administrative Law Judge is
VACATED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings

consistent with this Memorandum Opinion;

and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall close this case.

s/ Renée Marie Bumb
RENEE MARIE BUMB, U.S.D.J.

$