VEGA v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
Filing
11
OPINION. Signed by Judge Claire C. Cecchi on 11/26/13. (gmd, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Civil
v.
OPINION
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
CECCHI, District Judge.
I.
INTRODUCTION
Nancy Vega ("Plaintiff') appeals the final determination of the Commissioner of the Social
Security Administration ("Commissioner" or "Defendant") denying Plaintiff disability benefits
under the Social Security Act. The Court has jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). This motion
has been decided on the written submissions of the parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 78. 1 For the reasons set forth below, the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (the
"ALJ") is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with
II.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Procedural Background
on
was
July 15,
denied
not disabled. (R.32-44.) The Appeals Council
on April 16,
Commissioner. (R.1-8.) Plaintiff timely filed
B.
ALJ's decision the final judgment of the
action.
Personal and Employment Background
Plaintiff has a high school degree and completed two years of college, ending in 1987.
(R.156.) Plaintiff alleges that she became disabled on October 23, 2006, at which time she was
forty years old. (R. 137.) She further alleges and that she left her career as a packing operator,
which she had held for over a decade, due to this disability. (R.151-152.)
Plaintiff's past employment involved operating machines that performed various
packaging functions, making minor adjustments or repairs, and inspecting the finished products of
the packaging. (R.152.) This job required her to spend three hours per day walking, sitting, or
states
I
2
was
.)
Another report by Dr. Irizarry-Rodriguez
monthly, and added
2008
states
he was
t-..-"'"'lt- 1 r•n-
vlla~nh+i-
depression, and chronic fatigue syndrome ("CPS")
to the list of diagnoses. (R.279.) He reported that Plaintiff was able to lift and
ten pounds
occasionally (defined as up to one-third of the day), stand and/or walk less than two hours per day,
and sit less than six hours per day. (R.283.) Finally, he reported that Plaintiff's ability to push and
pull was limited in the upper extremities. (R.284.) The measurements of Plaintiff's range of
motion taken by Dr. Irizarry-Rodriguez show limitations in many areas. (R.285-286.)
In November 2007, Plaintiff underwent a consultative neurological evaluation by Dr. Zaida
Boria. (R.245.) Dr. Boria's report noted that Plaintiff had normal muscle tone, and that she could
pinch, grasp, and write. (R.24 7.) Dr. Boria determined that the Plaintiff had lumbar pain with
moderate restrictions
range of motion, normal reflexes and sensorial exploration correlating
(R.248.)
could
stand,
measurements
3
common
as
an
was
to
at
same
a
to the June
1 intervertebral disk narrowing was
changes." (R.275.)
Dr.
" and
concluded that
degenerative
Mateo concluded that Plaintiff's condition "may sometimes be seen as a
normal variant." (Id.)
Plaintiff received a consultative examination from Dr. Marc Weber in February 2009.
(R.31 0.) Dr. Weber notes that Plaintiff presented with pain in the neck, back, shoulders, and hands,
and that she stated that her pain worsens in her back when she lies flat. (Id.) During her physical
examination, Dr. Weber found that Plaintiff was in "no apparent distress" and appeared
comfortable.
(R.311.)
Dr. Weber indicated tenderness upon palpation of the mid lumbar
interspinous region and both trapezius muscles, and upon palpation of the mid lumbar interspinous
regions and paraspinal muscles. Further, Dr. Weber found no tenderness upon palpation of the
4
to
than
signs. (Id.) Dr. Tiku's musculoskeletal examination
that Plaintiff had a
and some
node at
second DIP joint, pain in her hip joints
the left knee and crepitation in the right. (Id.) Dr. Tiku also reviewed lab
tests and x-rays provided by Plaintiff, and stated that they were all within normal limits. (R. 368.)
III.
LEGAL STANDARDS
A.
Standard of Review
This Court has jurisdiction to review the Commissioner's decision under 42 U.S.C. §
405(g). The Court is not "permitted to re-weigh the evidence or impose their own factual
determinations," but must give deference to the administrative findings. Chandler v. Comm'r Soc.
Sec., 667 F.3d 356,359 (3d Cir. 2011); see also 42 U.S.C. §405(g). Because conclusory statements
are "beyond meaningful judicial review" a district court should remand if the ALJ does not set
reasons
are
a
5
is
come to a
360 (3d
B.
1999).
Determining Disability
Under the statute, before obtaining DIB a claimant must demonstrate that she is unable 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
statute requires that disability will be evaluated by the claimant's ability to engage in his previous
work or any other form of substantial gainful activity existing in the national economy, taking into
account the claimant's age, education, and work experience. 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(B).
The SSA follows a five-step sequential evaluation to determine whether a claimant is
disabled within the meaning of the statute. 20 C.P.R.
6
404.1520. First, the ALJ must determine
IS
one,
at
to
IV.
upon
burden at
at
DISCUSSION
reviewing all
evidence in the record, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff was not
disabled and denied her claim
required five-step analysis.
DIB. (R.44.) The ALJ arrived at his decision by following the
the first step, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had not engaged in
substantial gainful activity since October 23, 2006, the alleged onset date of her disability. (R.40.)
At step two, the ALJ determined that the Plaintiff suffered from three severe impairments:
"osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, and anemia." (Id.) At step three, the ALJ determined that the
Plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled
one found in the Listings. (Id.) The ALJ then determined that the Plaintiff had the RFC to perform
sedentary work as defined in 20 C.F .R. 404.1567(a), except that she can occasionally kneel, crouch
and crawL (R.41-43.) At step four, the ALJ determined that the Platintiffwas unable to perform
were
.)
at
7
)
to
a
This Court
to
at 17.
was
that the ALJ failed to make reviewable findings regarding
and depression. Additionally, the ALJ failed to make reviewable findings regarding Plaintiff's
subjective complaints of pain. Therefore the Court affirms in part and vacates in part.
case
will be remanded with instructions to reopen the record on these issues and to render a new ruling
after the parties have been heard.
A.
The ALJ Failed to Discuss The Alleged Psychiatric Impairments and CFS
Although the ALJ' s summary of the medical evidence in the record is accurate and
thorough he does not set forth the reasons for his decision regarding certain findings. This prevents
meaningful review. Thomas, 625 F.3d at 800. Where there is conflicting probative evidence in
the record, the Third Circuit recognizes "a particularly acute need for an explanation of the
reasoning behind the ALJ's conclusions." Fargnoli v. Halter, 247 F.3d at 42. Here, the Court
cannot
error.
reasons for the ALJ' s
1
1
or
not set
1
so.
a statement
"
On
fatigue syndrome
or merely disregarded the diagnosis. The Defendant
that there is "a considerable overlap of symptoms between CPS and fibromyalgia." Pl.
Opp. at 10 n.3. Nevertheless, the decision did not explain whether or why the ALJ credited Dr.
Irizarry-Rodriguez's fibromyalgia diagnosis but not his diagnosis of CPS. Thus, without clarity
regarding the ALJ's consideration of the CPS diagnosis or other evidence, this Court cannot
meaningfully review the ALJ's decision. Cotter, 642 P.2d at 705.
B.
The ALJ Failed to Properly Evaluate Plaintiff's Credibility
SSR 96-7 requires that when providing a credibility determination an ALJ must "give
specific reasons for the weight given to the individual's statements." See also, Breslin v. Comm'r
~;;...;;;...;:;.__;;;;_.,;;...;;..;.. 7
C.
509
Appx. 149, 153 (3d Cir. 2013).
The ALJ Properly Evaluated Medical Evidence of Anemia
"""""L""LAlL\.t. ...f. . . .
l:"t:>,f#cl•l:"Cl 1 t'\lt:>
9
error
not
1"'\1"rl•1"'\t""f•h
a
were no
..... ...,j..."'"'·" ............., ...... J,f"O.
making his determination
Plaintiffs
the
the
specifically considered
anemia (R.41 ), and mild anemia (R.42).
Plaintiffs anemia more seriously impacted her work, and Plaintiff points at none. Thus, the ALJ's
determination is supported by substantial evidence.
D.
Plaintiff's Other Contentions
Plaintiffs remaining contentions regarding the RFC and step five depend on the resolution
of the errors discussed above.
However, the Court notes that with respect to the ALJ's rejection of Dr. IrizarryRodriguez' s opinions, the ALJ' s credibility determination may provide an articulated basis for
discounting some of those opinions but not others. For example, the ALJ properly supports his
discounting of Dr. Irizarry-Rodriguez's opinion regarding disc disease in that another physician's
measurements
set
and
V.
he
in
not.
CONCLUSION
the
f'"'"""'~::'~G!~.;o..
reasons,
ALJ's decision that Plaintiff is not disabled within the
meaning of the Social Security Act is hereby affirmed in part, vacated in part, and is remanded for
further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. An appropriate order accompanies this Opinion.
DATED: November 26,2013
CLAIRE C. CECCHI, U.S.D.J.
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?