Sealey v. Astrue

Filing 25

ORDER GRANTING 19 Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, and DENYING 21 Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Counsel is directed to read Order in its entirety for critical information. Signed by US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 7/29/2013. (Fisher, M.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:12-CV-605-BO
KARENSEALEY,

)
)

Plaintiff,

)
)

V.

)

CAROLYN COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

ORDER

)
)
)
)
)

This matter is before the Court on the parties' cross-motions for judgment on the
pleadings. [DE 19 & 21]. A hearing on this matter was held in New Bern, North Carolina on July
24, 2013 at 2:00p.m. For the reasons discussed below, plaintiffs motion is GRANTED,
defendant's motion is DENIED, and, accordingly, the judgment of the Administrative Law Judge
is REVERSED.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff protectively filed for disability insurance benefits (DIB) under Title II ofthe
Social Security Act on August 16, 2009. The plaintiff alleged disability beginning on January 17,
2003. The plaintiffs date last insured was June 30,2010. The Social Security Administration
denied the plaintiffs application initially and upon reconsideration. On March 25,2011, the
plaintiff appeared and testified before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). On April29, 2011,
the ALJ denied the plaintiffs application. The Appeals Council denied the plaintiffs request for
review and the ALJ's decision became the final decision of the Commissioner. The plaintiff now
seeks judicial review of the Commissioner's final decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

MEDICAL HISTORY
Ms. Sealey has alleged disability due to "back injury, pseudo seizures, depression,
fibromyalgia, headaches/migraines, cephalgia, cranio cervical dystonia, memory concentration
fluctuations, occipital neuralgia, ... various misalignments with the spine, ... mild to severe
pain ... , [and] nerve damage ... " [Tr. 160]. Although she has received a nonspecific diagnosis,
the plaintiff suffers symptoms that are somewhat similar to epilepsy. At the hearing on this
matter, plaintiffs counsel explained some of the impairments this claimant has suffered. The
plaintiff experiences a lack of balance and auditory disturbances. She occasionally blacks out and
experiences visual delay. The plaintiff suffers from dizziness that eventually resulted in her
inability to drive. Despite her inability to drive, the plaintiff had a colleague driver he to work for
the last 2 and-a-half years that she was employed as a teacher. Most notably, the plaintiff often
experiences seizures that are worsened by stress. On her last day of work as a teacher the
plaintiff suffered from nine seizures.
After leaving her position as a teacher the plaintiff attempted to work part-time as a
church secretary. However, even this position proved too much for her, the frequency of her
seizures increased, and she could not continue to perform the required work.
DISCUSSION
When a social security claimant appeals a final decision of the Commissioner, the district
court's review is limited to the determination of whether, based on the entire administrative
record, there is substantial evidence to support the Commissioner's findings. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g);
Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389,401 (1971). Substantial evidence is defined as "evidence
which a reasoning mind would accept as sufficient to support a particular conclusion." Shively v.
Heckler, 739 F.2d 987, 989 (4th Cir. 1984)(quoting Laws v. Celebrezze, 368 F.2d 640,642 (4th

2

Cir. 1966)). Ifthe Commissioner's decision is supported by such evidence, it must be affirmed.
Smith v. Chafer, 99 P.3d 635, 638 (4th Cir. 1996).
In making a disability determination, the ALJ engages in a five-step evaluation process.
20 C.P.R.§ 404.1520; see Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 P.3d 650 (4th Cir. 2005). The analysis
requires the ALJ to consider the following enumerated factors sequentially. At step one, if the
claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity, the claim is denied. At step two, the
claim is denied if the claimant does not have a severe impairment or combination of impairments
significantly limiting him or her from performing basic work activities. At step three, the
claimant's impairment is compared to those in the Listing oflmpairments. See 20 C.P.R. Part
404, Subpart P, App. 1. If the impairment is listed in the Listing of Impairments or if it is
equivalent to a listed impairment, disability is conclusively presumed. However, ifthe claimant's
impairment does not meet or equal a listed impairment then, at step four, the claimant's residual
functional capacity ("RPC") is assessed to determine whether plaintiff can perform his past work
despite his impairments. If the claimant cannot perform past relevant work, the analysis moves
on to step five: establishing whether the claimant, based on his age, work experience, and RFC
can perform other substantial gainful work. The burden of proof is on the claimant for the first
four steps ofthis inquiry, but shifts to the Commissioner at the fifth step. Pass v. Chafer, 65 P.3d
1200, 1203 (4th Cir. 1995).
Here, the ALJ erred by concluding at step five by failing to weigh the opinions of
medical sources. The ALJ must weigh the opinions of medical sources by considering, among
other things, the length of the treatment relationship, the frequency of examination, the nature
and extent of the treatment relationship, consistency, and specialization. See 20 CPR§
404.1527(d). The ALJ must consider all medical opinion conflicts with the ALJ's RFC, the

3

conflict must be explained in the decision. !d. Additionally, Social Security Ruling 96-2p states
that "if a treating source's medical opinion is well-supported and not inconsistent with the other
substantial evidence in the case record, it must be given controlling weight." See Coffman v.

Bowen, 829 F .2d 514 (4th Cir. 1987).
The ALJ's decision in this case is particularly troubling because he dismissed the
opinions of all the treating physicians. Specifically, the ALJ rejected the opinion of Ms. Sealey's
treating neurologist, Dr. Charya. Dr. Charya treated Ms. Sealey for over eight years for her
seizures and related conditions. In 2008 and 201 0, Dr. Chary a noted that the plaintiff should
avoid strenuous activity, should lift less than ten pounds, and should reduce the stress in her life.
[Tr. 371-71 & 728]. These prescribed limitations would limit the plaintiffto a level of work less
than sedentary. Further, Dr. Charya's opinion was consistent with the consultative examiner,
who opined that the plaintiffwas "clearly ... debilitated." [Tr. 618-622]. Yet, the ALJ did not
address Dr. Charya' s concerns. Instead, the ALJ relied on the state agency doctors who allowed
that Ms. Sealey could perform light work. However, the opinions of the state agency doctors do
not take into consideration the limitations arising from Ms. Sealey's frequent seizures. As such,
these opinions do not represent substantial evidence. Dr. Charya' s opinion is supported by his
treatment notes beginning in 2002 and is consistent with the remainder of the record and the
plaintiffs self-reported limitations. As such, the ALJ erred by rejecting his opinion without
adequate explanation. Because the ALJ' s finding that the claimant is capable of performing work
other than her past relevant work is not supported by substantial evidence it is proper to remand
this matter to the agency for an award of benefits.

4

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiffs motion for judgment on the pleadings is
GRANTED, and the decision ofthe Commissioner is REVERSED. The decision of whether to
reverse and remand for benefits or reverse and remand for a new hearing is one which "lies
within the sound discretion of the district court." Edwards v, Bowen, 672 F.Supp. 230, 236
(E.D.N.C. 1987). Accordingly, this case is REMANDED for an award ofbenefits.

SO ORDERED.
This

U day of July, 2013.
T
NCE W. BOYLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JU

5