LEONARD v. COLVIN
Filing
14
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE signed by MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER on 03/01/2017. After a careful consideration of the evidence of record, the Court finds that the decision of the ALJ is not susceptible to ju dicial review. Accordingly, this Court RECOMMENDS that the Commissioner's decision finding no disability be REVERSED, and the matter be REMANDED to the Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Commissioner should be dire cted to remand the matter to the ALJ for further administrative action as set out above. To this extent, Plaintiff's motion for judgment (Docket Entry 8 ) should be GRANTED and Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Docket Entry 10 ) be DENIED.(Taylor, Abby)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
JONATHAN L. LEONARD,
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
NANCY BERRYHILL,
Acting Commissioner of the Social
Security Administration,
Defendant.
l:líCY7l7
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE IUDGE
Plaintiff, Jonathan L. Leonard, brought this action pursuant to Section 205(9) of the
Social Security Act (the "Âct"), as amended (42 U.S.C. $ 405(9), to obtain review of a ftnal
decision of the Commissioner of Social Securityl denying his claims for a Period of Disability
("POD") and Disability Insurance Beneûts ("DIB") under Title II of the -A.ct. The Court
has
before it the certified administrative record and cross-motions for judgment.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff filed an application for
onset date of Jauary 22, 2010.
(It.
1
a
POD and DIB inJanuary of 2012 alleging
1,
1,7
a
disability
5-78, 19t.¡z The application was denied initially
I Nancy Berryhill recently became the Acting Commissioner of Social Security. Pursuant to
Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Ptocedute, Nancy Berryhill should be substituted for Carolyn
W. Colvin as Defendant in this suit. No further action need be taken to continue this suit by reason
of the last sentence of Section 205(g) of the A.ct,42 U.S.C. S 405(g).
2
Transcdpt citations refer to the Administrative Transcript of Record filed manually with the
Answer. (Docket Entry 5.)
Commissioner's
and again upon reconsideration. Qd. at 115-1,18,120-23.) Plaintiff then requested a hearing
before an Administrative LawJudge ('ÂLJ") (id. at1,24-25) and at the March 20,2014 hearing
wete Plaintiff, his attorney, znd a vocational expert
determined that Plaintiff was not disabled under the
("VE").
r{ct.
Qd.
at25-67.) The ALJ
(Id. at 11-20.) On July 26, 201,5,
the Appeals Council denied Plainuffs request fot review, making the ALJ's decision the
Commissionet's fìnal decision for purposes of review. Qd. at L-5.)
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff was 44 years old on the alleged disability onset date. (Id. at 18.) He had at
least a high school education and was able to communicate in
English.
(Id.)
III. STANDARD FOR REVIEW
The Commissioner held that Plaintiff was not under a disability within the meaning
of
the -A.ct. Under 42 U.S.C. $ a05(g), the scope of judicial review of the Commissioner's final
decision is specifìc and
nartow.
Smith u. Schweiker,795tr.2d343,345 (4th Cir. 1986). This
Coutt's teview of that decision is limited to determining whether there is substantial evidence
in the record to support the Commissioner's decision. 42U.5.C.
$ a05(g); Hanter u, Sulliuan,
993 F.2d 31, 34 (4th Cir. 1,992); Hø1t u. Salliuan, 907 F.2d 1453, 1,456 (4th Cir. 1990).
Substantial evidence is "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate
to support a conclusio n." Huftter, 993 F .2d at 34 (cittng Nchardnn
(1971)).
It
"consists
u. Perales, 402
U.S. 389 , 401
of more than a mete scintilla" "but may be somewhat less than
preponderatrce." Id. (qtottng l-øws u, CelebreTge, 368 F.2d 640, 642 (4th Cir.
2
1,966)).
a
The Commissioner must make findings of fact and tesolve conflicts in the evidence.
Hryt,907 tr.2d
^t
1456 (citing Kingu. Califano,599 F.2d 597,599 (4th Cir. 1,979)). The Court
does not conduct a de novo review
Schweiker,795 F.2d
of the evidence nor of the Commissioner's
fìndings.
at 345. In reviewing for substantial evidence, the Coutt does not
undertake to re-weigh conflicting evidence, to make credibility determinations, or to substitute
its judgment for that of the Commissioner. Craigu. Chater,76tr.3d 585,589 (4th Cir. 1,996)
(citing Ha1¡ 907 tr.2d at 1456). "'V7here conflicting evidence allows reasonable minds to
differ as to whether a claimant is disabled, the responsibility for that decision falls on the
[Commissioner] (or the [Commissioner's] designate, the ALJ)." Cmig76tr.3d at 589 (quoting
Ihalker a. Bowen,834 F.2d 635, 640 (7th Cir.
only
See
1987). The denial of benefits will be reversed
if no reasonable mind could accept the record as adequate to support the determination.
Nchard¡0n,402 U.S. at
401. The issue before the Court, thetefore, is not whether Plaintiff
is disabled, but whether the Commissioner's fìndin g that Plaintiff is not disabled is supported
by substantial evidence and was teached based upon a correct application of the televant law.
See
id.; Cofnan u. Bowen,829 tr.2d 514, 51,7 (4th Cit. 1,987).
IV. THE ALJ'S DISCUSSION
The Social Security Regulations defìne "disability" for the purpose of obtaining
disability benefits as the "inability
to do any substantial gainful activity by reason of
any
medically determinable physical or mental impairment3 which can be expected to result in
3
A "physical or mental impairment" is an impairment resulting from "anatomical,
physiological, ot psychological abnormalities which are demonstrable by medically acceptable clinical
and laboratory diagnostic techniques." 42 U.S.C. S 423 (d)Q).
J
death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous pedod of not less than
12 months." 20 C.F.R. S 404.1505(a);
rce al¡o
42 U.S.C. g a%(d)(t)(a). To meet this
definition, a claimantmust have a severe impairment which makes it impossible to do previous
wotk ot any other substantial gainful acivitya that exists in the national economy. 20 C.F.R.
S
404.1505(a);
see
al¡o 42 U.S.C. S
423(dX2XÐ.
A. The Five-Step Sequential
Analysis
The Commissioner follows a fìve-step sequential analysis to ascertain whether the
claimant is disabled, which is set
Sec.
foth in 20 C.F.R. S 404.1520.
See
Albright a. Comm'r
of Soe
Admin.,174tr.3d 473,475 n.2 (4th Cir. 1.999). The .{LJ must determine:
(1)
Whethet the claimant is engaged in substanttal gainful activity
claimant is
working). If
so, the claimant is
whether the
not disabled and the inquiry ends.
tX/hether the claimant has a severe impaitment.
Ø
(2.e.,
If not, then the claimant is not
disabled and the inquiry ends.
(3)
Whether the impairment meets or equals to medical criteria of 20 C.F.R., Part
404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, which sets forth a list of impairments thatwarrant
a
fìndingof disabilitywithoutconsideringvocationalctitena. If so, the claimanti¡
disabled and the inquiry is halted.
(4)
Whether the impairment prevents the claimant ftom performing past relevant
work. If not, the claimant
a
is not disabled and the inquiry is halted.
"substantial gainful activity" is work that (1) involves performing significant or productive
profit. 20 C.F.R. S 404.1510.
physical or mental duties, and Q) is done (or intended) for pay or
4
(5)
\X/hether the claimant is able to perform any other work considering both his
residual functional capacitys ("RFC") and his vocational abilities.
If
so, the
claimant is not disabled.
20 c.F.R.
S
404.1520.
Hete, the ,A,LJ first determined that Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since his alleged onset date of January 22, 201,0. (Tr. 13.) The ALJ next found in
step two that Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: degenerative disc disease,
hand injury, hypertension, carpel tunnel syndrome, DPN, and obesity. Qd.)
a
At step three,
the,\LJ found that Plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of impairments listed
in, or medically equal to, one listed in Appendix
1.
Qd. at 1,4.)
determined that Plaintiff could not return to his past relevant
work.
At
step four, the ALJ
Qd. at
1,8.) At step five,
the ALJ determined that considering Plaintiffs age, education, work experience, and RFC,
there were jobs in the national economy that he could
B.
perform. (d. at 1,9.)
Residual Functional Capacity Determination
Pdor to step four, the ,{LJ determined Plaintiffs RFC based on his evaluation of the
evidence.
Qd. at
14-1,8.) Based on the evidence as a whole, the ALJ detetmined that:
[t]he claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform light
work as defìned in 20 CFR 404.1576(b) except he requires the
option to sit and stand at will, and he cannot twist or turn about
5
"Residual functional capaciq" is the most â claimant can do in a work setting despite the
physical and mental limitations of his impairment and any related symptom (e.g., pain). See 20 C.F'.R.
$ 40a.15a5(a) (1); see ako Hines u Barnhart,453 F.3d 559,562 (4th Cir. 2006). The RFC includes both
a "physical exertional or strength limitation" that assesses the claimant's "ability to do sedentary, light,
medium, hearJ, or vely hear,ry work," as well as "nonexertional limitations (mental, sensory or skin
impairments)." Hølla. Harris,658 F.2d 260,265 (4th Cit. 1981).
5
the back continuously. The claimant can ftequently, not
constantly, fìnger and handle. He should never climb ladders,
ropes or scaffolds, but he can occasionally climb ramps and stairs.
(Id. at 1,4.)
C.
Past Relevant Work
The ALJ found at step four that Plaintiff could not perform his past relevant work
a police
officer and state trooper. Qd. at
D.
as
1,5.)
Adiustment to Other Work
The claimant bears the initial burden of proving the existence of a disability. 42 U.S.C.
S
423(dX5); 20 C.F.R. S 404.1512; Snith u. Califano,592F.2d 1,235,1,236 (4th Cir. 1,979).
If
the claimant has established at step four that he cannot do any work he has done in the past
because of his severe impairments, the burden shifts to the Commissio ner at step five to show
that jobs exist
in
signifìcant numbets
in the national economy which the claimant
petform consistent with his RF'C, age, education, and past work experience
.
could
Hønter,993 F.2d
at,35; Wil¡on u. Calfano,617 tr.2d 1050, 1053 (4th Cir. 1980). The,\LJ found here that given
PlaintifÎs
age, education,
work experience, and RFC, there were jobs in the national economy
that he could perform, such as clerk, ticket taker, and toll bridge attendant. (Tr. 19.)
V.
In pertinent part, Plaintiff
ANALYSIS
contends that the ALJ materially erred
in assessing his
credibility. (Docket Entries 9 at 1,3-1,2 and 12 at 5-10.) The Court agrees for the following
reasons. More specifìcally, Craigu. Chaterprovides a two-part test for evaluating a claimant's
statements about symptoms. "First, there must be objective medical evidence showing 'the
existence
of a medical impaiment(s) which results from anatomical, physiological,
6
or
psychological abnotmalities and which could teasonably be expected to produce the pain or
other symptoms alleged."' Craigu. Chater,76F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir. 1,996) (citing 20 C.F.R.
S
404.1s2eþ)).6
If
the -{LJ determines that such an impairment exists, the second part of the test then
requires him to considet all available evidence, including the claimant's statements about pain,
in order to determine whether the claimant is disabled. Id, at 595-96. \X/hile the ALJ must
consider aclaimant's statements and othet subjective evidence at step two, he need.notctedit
them insofar as they conflict with the objective medical evidence or to the extent that the
undetlying impairment could not reasonably be expected to cause the symptoms alleged. 1/.
Where the ÂLJ has considered the relevant factorsT and heard the claimant's testimony and
observed his demeanor, the ALJ's credibility determination is entitled to deference. Shiueþ
u.
Heckler,739 F.2d987,989 (4th Cir. 1,984)
n
Subsequent to Plaintiff filing his complaint and his motion for judgment, the Social Secudty
Administration superseded SSR 96-7p with SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 11,1,9029 (À4ar. 16, 201,6). Social
Security Ruling 16-3p eliminates the use of the term " 'credibility' from . . . sub-regulatory policy" and
"clarify[ies] that subjective symptom evaluation is not an examination of an individual's characte{' Id.
at *1. Because SSR 96-7p was in effect at the time of the ALJ's decision, this Court will review the
decision under SSR 96-7p, See Keefer u. Coluin,2016WL 553951,6, at*1.1. n.5 (D.S.C. Sept. 30, 201,6).
i
The relevant regulatory factors are: (i) the claimant's daily activities; (ü) the location, duration,
frequency, and intensity of the claimant's pain or other symptoms; (üi) precipitating and aggravattng
factots; (tv) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication the claimant takes or
has taken to alleviate his pain or other symptoms; (v) treatment, other than medication, the claimant
teceives or has received for relief of his pain ot other symptoms; (vi) âny measures the claimant uses
or has used to relieve his pain ot other symptoms; and (vü) other factors concerning the claimant's
functional limitations and testrictions due to pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. $ a0a.1529(c)(3).
The regulations do not mandate that the ALJ discuss all these factots in a decision. See, e.g., Bageft u.
Astrae,No. 5:08-CV-165-D, 2009 WL 1438209, at *9 (E.D.N.C. May 20,2009) (unpublished) (noting
that the law requires "that the ALJ consider these factors, not that [s]he discuss each of them").
7
Here, the,\LJ stated that he had"carefulfly] consider[ed]" the evidence and found that
Plaintiffs "medically detetminable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause the
alleged symptoms[.]" (Tr. at
15.)
The,A.LJ thetefote discharged his duty under the
frst
step
of the Craiganalysis. Second, at step-two of the Craiganalysis, the ,\LJ decided that Plaintiff
s
"statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms are
not entirely ctedible for the reasorìs explained in this decision."
Qd.)
It is at this point that the .A.LJ erred. Specifìcally, Plaintiff ço¡¡s¡cls-and the Court
agtees-that the ALJ's decision to partially discount his credibility tegarding the purported
side-effects of his medication is unsupported by substantial evidence. (Docket E.ttty 9 at 14-
16.) In support, Plaintiff points to his hearing testimony, which, reads as follows
Q: Ând what medication do you take for pain?
A:
Hydrocodone 10 - I had him cut
milligram, 325 I think is what it said.
it
back
-
10
Q: And do you have any side effects from the
medication?
-4.: Well, it makes you dtowsy and sleepy. And like any
narcotic drug or alcohol or anything, it affects judgment and
reasoning.
Q:
How does it affect yout judgment and reasoning?
Â:
'S7ell,
if the pain's too bad, and I
can take up to six a
day,rf I take about four, you can feel it.
Q:
How do you feel it?
A: I(nd of woozy. I
mean,
before. I know what alcohol do to you.
8
to be honest, I
drank
-A.LJ: So what are you saying, in comparison to drinking?
I think that's what you were trying to tell me.
Yes, it'll make you - Basically, it's like this. I've
sent people to jail and prison for taking that stuff and driving. I
wouldn't get out and drive and take it. There's iust no way.
CLMT:
Examination of Claimant by Claimant's Attorney
And how often do you have that expetience in an
week? How many times would you have to take
Q:
avera;ge
medication?
A: It depends on if I have the shatp pain. That's when
I just absolutely have to take the medicine. And I've uied to take
one or two. And then I may have to take another one. But I will
not - It's like I told Dr. Took, I believe I'd just scream before I
take eight a day. They really should have me eight a day. -dnd
it just tears up my stomach and all that.
,\LJ:
So how may do you take? Four, would you say?
CLMT:
Sir,
I can take six a day.
ALJ: How many do you take?
CLMT: Usually between four and six. It just depends
on that sharp pain.
Examination of Claimant by Claimant's Attorney
Q: And so are you - How often, in an average week, how
many days a week would you be woozy like you just described
where you lose your-
A:
I'm going to say probably four times. It's just, it
really just depends.
ALJ:
Depends on the pain?
CLMT: What I've done, yes, sit, the pain.
9
Examination of Claimant by Claimant's Attorney
what do you do? Are you
still able to be up and about, or do you lay down, or what?
Q: And when you take medication,
A:
I try to lay down.
Because that helps between taking
the medication and laying down.
Q: And how long do you lay down when you take
medication?
A:
It just depends on if it knocks me out or not.
Q: Okay. So let's -
How often does it knock you out,
when you take medication?
Â:
I might
sleep
two hours.
Q:
But in a week, how many times
knocked out by medication?
a
week would you be
,{.: It varies, it may be three. It depends
on the pain, and
when it happens.
Q:
But three days a week?
,{,:
,{,t least.
Q: Okay. Â,nd, that time, you lay down?
A:
I maybe put my legs over the end of things, try to ease
it off fìrst, and if that don't, then I have to take the medication.
Q:
And lay down?
Â:
Yes, sir
Q: And how long do you lay down.
A: It depends. It may be an hout. If it knocks me out,
I may be there an hout Ot two hours. It just depends.
10
Q: Okay. So ,{.:
I don't know if it - I don't know about - I don't know
if its because if I hadn't eaten nothing, or I've eat something, or
what. Medication just affects me differently different times,
diffetent ways.
Q:
And does this happen the same time every
day?
Â:
Most of the time, stiffness is after I get back from the
Y. It may last, it may start about lunchtime or just before lunch,
but by afternoon, I just, I'm just tight as a tick.
Q: All okay. And then when you take this medicarion,
you said three ot four days a week, it knocks you out. And then
you have to lay down in the afternoon?
'\:
Yes,
I'll
lay
down. It makes me drowsy.
Q: Right. And then how long to you lay down?
A: ltmay be an hour, two hours. It may be 45 minutes,
just depends. I think a lot of it depends on whether I've gor
it
anything on my stomach of not.
Q: Okay. Now, you're
taking medication as your
doctor prescribed?
A:
Yes, sir.
Q: nØithin the range that he's prescribed?
A,:
Yes, where he's set up to six a day.
Q: Okay. How many times do you take up to six a day,
in an avetage week?
A:
I'm going to say at least three days. At least. Like I
said, I may do better some days than I do others.
,{TTY:
Right.
ll
ALJ: I
appreciate you all helping to try to be ptecise in
yout testimony, and I appreciate what you're trying to do, and I
thank you for that. And maybe, ptobably what you did for a
living.
(Tr. 38-40, 54-57.)
The,{,LJ addressed this testimony as follows
Eady in the heating, the claimant stated that his medication made
him, dtowsy/sleepy and "kinda woozy". He also suggested that
his medication could affect this judgment and reasoning, but he
was verT vague in this regard, in that he did not provide
^ny
examples of instances when he experienced this allegation. The
claimant initially stated that he has not had a full night's sleep (he
clarifìed a full night's sleep as six hours) since his fall in January
201,0, which he atributed to his medication. He then clarified
that the medication that kept him awake was change[d] to the
medication he currently takes that makes him sleepy. The
claimant finally tepotted that he does, in fact, gets [sic] up to
seven hours of sleep, at times, but no more than seven.
(It. 15.) Consequently, the ALJ detetmined
that Plaintiffs testimony regarding the
effects of his medications was not entirely credible because it was
'îery vague."
side
Id.
This finding is not supported by substantial evidence. Plaintiffs testimony that his
pain medication required him to lay down/sleep between fotty-five minutes to two hours,
thfee to four times per week, because
it "knocked" him "out"
was not "vague."
In
fact,
dudng the hearing, the ,\LJ indicated the opposite, complimenting Plaintiff and counsel for
the detail of the testimony. (Id. at 56-57.) Ând, futhermore, while the ALJ correctly noted
that Plaintiff failed to provide specifìc example of limitations to judgment and reasoning due
to side effects from medication,
he
failed to acknowledge or address
12
the
fact that Plaintffi teúfied in
con¡iderable detail that
hi¡ nedication "/
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?