Ortiz v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
18
Memorandum Opinion and Order affirming the Commissioner's decision. Magistrate Judge Kathleen B. Burke on 11/2/2015. (D,I)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
AIDA N. ORTIZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 1:14CV2845
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
KATHLEEN B. BURKE
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
Plaintiff Aida N. Ortiz (“Ortiz”) seeks judicial review of the final decision of Defendant
Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying her application for Supplemental
Security Income (“SSI”). Doc. 1. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
This case is before the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to the consent of the parties. Doc.
13.
For the reasons stated below, the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED.
I. Procedural History
Ortiz filed an application for SSI on July 15, 2011, alleging a disability onset date of
April 23, 2011. Tr. 17, 227. She alleged disability based on the following: deep vein
thrombosis; pulmonary embolism; diabetes; carpal tunnel syndrome; and rheumatoid arthritis.
Tr. 318. After denials by the state agency initially (Tr. 142) and on reconsideration (Tr. 150),
Ortiz requested an administrative hearing. Tr. 106. A hearing was held before Administrative
Law Judge (“ALJ”) Peter Bronson on February 20, 2013. Tr. 37-68. At the hearing, Ortiz
amended her disability onset date to July 15, 2011. Tr. 41. In his July 5, 2013, decision (Tr. 171
29), the ALJ determined that there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national
economy that Oritz can perform, i.e., she is not disabled. Tr. 27. Ortiz requested review of the
ALJ’s decision by the Appeals Council (Tr. 10) and, on October 28, 2014, the Appeals Council
denied review, making the ALJ’s decision the final decision of the Commissioner. Tr. 1-3.
II. Evidence
A. Personal and Vocational Evidence
Ortiz was born in 1971 and was 39 years old on the date her application was filed. Tr.
227. She graduated from high school in 1990. Tr. 42. She previously performed part-time work
at K-Mart. Tr. 42-43. She began working there in 2012 and was still working there at the time
of her hearing. Tr. 42. She never worked prior to 2012. Tr. 43. Although she is not fluent in
English, she can speak, understand, and read some English. Tr. 24, 43.
B. Relevant Medical Evidence1
On December 22, 2011, Ortiz visited the Geneva Clinic “to re-establish.” Tr. 373. She
presented with no complaints. Tr. 373. Upon physical examination, she had a normal
musculoskeletal examination and normal extremities with a normal pulse and reflexes. Tr. 373.
Upon neurological examination she had mild diabetic neuropathy in her lower extremities. Tr.
373. Under the “assessment and plan” portion of the record, the treatment note reads, “Diabetes
uncontrolled. Discussed with patient diet control and compliance with medication.”
On August 6, 2012, Ortiz returned to the Clinic complaining of lower extremity
numbness. Tr. 419. Her physical examination findings were the same as her previous visit. Tr.
1
Ortiz only challenges the ALJ’s decision with respect to his treatment of a consultative examiner’s opinion that,
based on Ortiz’s diabetes, Ortiz could never operate foot controls and could not tolerate exposure to humidity,
wetness, extreme cold, and extreme heat. See Doc. 15, p. 12. Accordingly, only the medical evidence relating to
that argument is summarized herein.
2
419. Due to complained-of side effects of her diabetes medication, she was prescribed Lantus.
Tr. 419.
On December 13, 2012, Ortiz had no complaints of numbness in her lower extremities
and examination results did not indicate neuropathy in her lower extremities. Tr. 416. The
treatment note reads that Ortiz’s diabetes was controlled, she was to continue her current
medication, and she was counseled about a low carb diet. Tr. 416. On January 10, 2013, Ortiz
had no complaints and no findings were made regarding neuropathy in her lower extremities. Tr.
415.
C. Medical Opinion Evidence—Consultative Examiner Dr. Bradford2
On March 8, 2013, Ortiz saw Dorothy A. Bradford, M.D., for a consultative examination.
Tr. 718-731. The exam occurred at the behest of the ALJ, who explained at the hearing, “there
was never any State consultative exam done in this case … [a]nd one of the things the State
consultative examiner would have done would have been to measure grip strength.” Tr. 65.
Upon examination, Ortiz’s left, non-dominant hand grasp was 4/5; her remaining functions
(manipulation, pinch, fine coordination) were all normal. Tr. 718. Dr. Bradford noted, “she has
lost [sic] of pinprick in both feet.” Tr. 725. She opined that Ortiz has “diabetic neuropathy in
both feet and should be limited to sedentary activity.” Tr. 725. She also stated that, due to
neuropathy, Ortiz could never use foot controls. Tr. 728. Dr. Bradford opined that Ortiz could
not perform work involving exposure to unprotected heights, moving mechanical parts, or
operating a motor vehicle. Tr. 730. She could occasionally experience humidity and wetness,
extreme cold, and extreme heat, and frequently be exposed to dusts, similar respiratory irritants,
2
For the reasons stated in footnote 1, supra, the Court only summarizes the medical opinion relevant to Ortiz’s
challenge to the ALJ’s decision.
3
and vibration. Tr. 730. She could occasionally handle, finger, and feel with both hands and
frequently reach, push and pull with her right hand. Tr. 728.
D. Testimonial Evidence
1. Ortiz’s Testimony
Ortiz was represented by counsel and testified at the administrative hearing; she was also
assisted by an interpreter. Tr. 41-53, 59-63. She testified that she is prevented from working full
time because of problems she has with her hands, standing for long periods of time, walking “a
lot,” being a diabetic, and having to take pills that put her to sleep. Tr. 44. She is unable to lift
and carry a five pound bag of sugar or a gallon of milk and cannot open jars. Tr. 44. She can
walk five minutes before having to sit down; stand for 30 minutes before having to sit down; has
no trouble sitting; can walk up and down steps carefully; and cannot hold things with her hands.
Tr. 45. She cannot kneel or bend forward at waist level but can crawl. Tr. 45.
Currently, her job at K-Mart involves a good deal of walking and standing. Tr. 60. She
works four days a week and never two days in a row. Tr. 61. On her days off she rests at home.
Tr. 61. When asked why she would be unable to perform a “sitting” job, Ortiz explained that she
feels a burning sensation in her fingers and hands and that, when sitting down for long periods of
time, she feels pain in her legs. Tr. 62. She drops heavy things frequently and also “small
objects” like her purse and plastic bags; she is unable to grip. Tr. 62. The tingling sensation and
constant pain in her right hand improved after her carpal tunnel surgery, “[b]ut every time I
submerge my hand into some hot water, or I use them to do something, the pain immediately
comes back and I have to massage my hands.” Tr. 62-63.
2. Medical Expert’s Testimony
4
Medical Expert Dr. Alan Kravitz (“ME”), a board certified internist, testified at the
hearing. Tr. 47-52. The ME stated that, in his opinion, Ortiz had one severe impairment—
diabetes with neuropathy. Tr. 48. He explained that he ruled out carpal tunnel syndrome
because it had been resolved, and that he did not find Ortiz’s plantar fasciitis or her knee
problems to be severe. Tr. 48. He opined that Ortiz did not have an impairment by itself or in
combination with others that meets or medically equals a listed impairment. Tr. 49. He believed
that Ortiz could perform a full range of sedentary work. Tr. 49. When asked why Ortiz would
be limited to sedentary work based on diabetes with neuropathy alone, the ME replied that the
neuropathy affects her walking, her hands, and her stomach. Tr. 49. He did not believe that she
required any restrictions with respect to grasping, handling, or gross or fine manipulation. Tr.
49-50.
Ortiz’s attorney asked the ME why he did not believe Ortiz had restrictions on her
manipulative abilities if, as he found, her neuropathy affects her hands. Tr. 50. The ME replied
that, based on the record, the neuropathy affects her upper extremities and her lower extremities
but nothing indicates that it affects her manipulative abilities at all. Tr. 50. Ortiz’s attorney
clarified that “hands” are considered “upper extremities” and the ME confirmed this was so. Tr.
50. Ortiz’s attorney asked what typical diabetes-based neuropathy symptoms would manifest in
the hands. Tr. 50. The ME answered that there are both sensory and motor symptoms but that
there is nothing in the record specifically with respect to Ortiz’s fingers. Tr. 50.
Ortiz’s attorney asked the ME if, based on his experience, people who have carpal tunnel
syndrome often have ongoing pain despite surgery. Tr. 50. The ME replied that they do not,
explaining, “It’s really when the surgery is performed and there’s a successful result, there’s no
subsequent pain.” Tr. 50-52. Ortiz’s attorney asked the ME if he was aware of what pain
5
medications Ortiz was taking and the ME stated that he was. Tr. 51. Ortiz’s attorney asked if
those medications are associated with fatigue, sleepiness, and lack of concentration. Tr. 51. The
ME responded that they might be but that there was no evidence of these symptoms in Ortiz’s
record. Tr. 51. The attorney asked the ME whether Ortiz had any vision issues and the ME
answered that none was indicated in the record. Tr. 51. Finally, the attorney asked the ME why
he believed that Ortiz’s inflammatory arthritis and carpal tunnel were not severe impairments.
Tr. 51. The ME reiterated that Ortiz’s carpal tunnel had been surgically resolved and that her
inflammatory arthritis was not a major impairment based on the way it is described in the record.
Tr. 51-52.
3. Vocational Expert’s Testimony
Vocational Expert Ted Macy (“VE”) testified at the hearing. Tr. 53-65. The ALJ and
the VE agreed that Ortiz had no past relevant work. Tr. 54. The ALJ asked the VE to determine
whether a hypothetical individual of Ortiz’s age and education could perform work if the
individual had the following characteristics: can perform work at the sedentary level “with all
that implies with respect to exertional and postural limitations, and see 20 CFR 416.967, for
further details about what those are”; can stand and/or walk up to and no more than a total of 30
minutes at a time; can occasionally bend, stoop, crouch, squat and crawl; cannot kneel; can
occasionally climb steps and ramps; cannot climb ladders, ropes or scaffolds; cannot work in
proximity to unprotected heights, dangerous moving machinery or other workplace hazards;
cannot operate a motor vehicle as part of the job; and can speak, understand, and read Spanish
fluently and can speak, understand and read English some. Tr. 55. The VE answered that such
an individual could perform work as a table worker (400 northeast Ohio jobs; 54,000 national
6
jobs), bench hand (650 northeast Ohio jobs; 95,000 national jobs), and final assembler (600 Ohio
jobs; 90,000 national jobs). Tr. 56-57.
Next, Ortiz’s attorney asked the VE if the same hypothetical individual could perform
those jobs if the individual was limited to frequently performing gross handling and fingering.
Tr. 57. The VE replied that such an individual could not perform work as a bench hand but
could still perform the other two jobs. Tr. 58. Ortiz’s attorney asked whether the VE’s answer
would change if such an individual were limited to occasional handling and fingering. Tr. 58.
The VE stated that such a limitation would eliminate the jobs previously mentioned and added
that there would be very few jobs available. Tr. 58. The VE explained that there would only be
five to eight jobs in northeast Ohio, that the jobs would have to provide an accommodation, and
that it would be very unusual. Tr. 58.
Ortiz’s attorney next asked the VE if the individual described in the ALJ’s hypothetical
could perform the jobs previously identified if the individual would be absent from work three
times a month on average. Tr. 58. The VE answered that there would be no jobs for such an
individual. Tr. 59. Ortiz’s attorney asked whether the hypothetical individual could perform
work if, instead of absences, the individual would need to take extra 15-minute breaks every two
hours. Tr. 59. The VE replied that there would be no work for such an individual. Tr. 59.
Finally, Ortiz’s attorney asked the VE to consider the ALJ’s original hypothetical
individual and to describe what affect the following additional limitation would have on the
individual’s ability to perform the jobs previously mentioned: the individual can occasionally
handle and finger with the left upper extremity. Tr. 64. The VE stated that such an individual
would have to do more work with the right hand and that it may not be feasible to do so in the
jobs previously mentioned, particularly the bench hand job. Tr. 64. The VE added that some
7
other jobs might remain, but that if one hand was limited to frequent and the other hand limited
to occasional, there would be no jobs such an individual could perform. Tr. 64.
III. Standard for Disability
Under the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 423(a), eligibility for benefit payments depends on the
existence of a disability. “Disability” is defined 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 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). Furthermore:
[A]n individual shall be determined to be under a 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 . . . .
42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2).
In making a determination as to disability under this definition, an ALJ is required to
follow a five-step sequential analysis set out in agency regulations. The five steps can be
summarized as follows:
1.
If the claimant is doing substantial gainful activity, he is not disabled.
2.
If claimant is not doing substantial gainful activity, his impairment must
be severe before he can be found to be disabled.
3.
If claimant is not doing substantial gainful activity, is suffering from a
severe impairment that has lasted or is expected to last for a continuous
period of at least twelve months, and his impairment meets or equals a
listed impairment, claimant is presumed disabled without further inquiry.
4.
If the impairment does not meet or equal a listed impairment, the ALJ
must assess the claimant’s residual functional capacity and use it to
determine if claimant’s impairment prevents him from doing past relevant
work. If claimant’s impairment does not prevent him from doing his past
relevant work, he is not disabled.
8
5.
If claimant is unable to perform past relevant work, he is not disabled if,
based on his vocational factors and residual functional capacity, he is
capable of performing other work that exists in significant numbers in the
national economy.
20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920;3 see also Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140-42 (1987).
Under this sequential analysis, the claimant has the burden of proof at Steps One through Four.
Walters v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 127 F.3d 525, 529 (6th Cir. 1997). The burden shifts to the
Commissioner at Step Five to establish whether the claimant has the vocational factors to
perform work available in the national economy. Id.
IV. The ALJ’s Decision
In his July 5, 2013, decision, the ALJ made the following findings:
1.
Ms. Ortiz has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since July 15,
2011, the amended alleged onset date. Tr. 20.
2.
From July 15, 2011, the amended alleged onset date, through the date of
this decision, Ms. Ortiz had and has the following severe impairments:
tricompartmental osteoarthritic changes of both knees, with the greatest
changes involving joint space narrowing at the medial femoral tibial joint
spaces bilaterally; bilateral plantar fasciitis; equinus deformity of the
foot; diabetic neuropathy secondary to diabetes; and obesity.
For at least some period(s) of time from July 15, 2011, the amended
alleged onset date, through the date of this decision, Ms. Ortiz had and
has the following impairments which were not and are not “severe
impairment[s]”: carpal tunnel syndrome and adjustment disorder with
mixed anxiety and depressed mood. Tr. 20-21.
3.
From July 15, 2011, the amended alleged onset date, through the date of
this decision, Ms. Ortiz did not and does not have an impairment or
combination of impairments that met, meets, medically equaled, or
medically equals the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR
Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. Tr. 21.
3
The DIB and SSI regulations cited herein are generally identical. Accordingly, for convenience, further citations
to the DIB and SSI regulations regarding disability determinations will be made to the DIB regulations found at 20
C.F.R. § 404.1501 et seq. The analogous SSI regulations are found at 20 C.F.R. § 416.901 et seq., corresponding to
the last two digits of the DIB cite (i.e., 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 corresponds to 20 C.F.R. § 416.920).
9
4.
From July 15, 2011, the amended alleged onset date, through the date of
this decision, Ms. Ortiz had and has the residual functional capacity to
perform work activities except for the following limits on her ability to
work: Ms. Ortiz could and can do work at the sedentary exertional level
only, with all that implies with respect to exertional and postural
limitations (see 20 CFR 416.967 for further details about what those
are)[], subject to the following additional limitations. Ms. Ortiz could
and can stand and/or walk up to and no more than a total, in the
aggregate, of 30 minutes at a time without taking a break from those
activities. This does not necessarily mean that Ms. Ortiz must take a
break from working while thus taking a break from standing and/or
walking. Ms. Ortiz could and can bend, stoop, crouch, squat, and crawl
up to and no more than occasionally. Ms. Ortiz could not and cannot
kneel. Ms. Ortiz could and can climb steps and ramps up to and no more
than occasionally. Ms. Ortiz could not and cannot climb ladders, ropes,
or scaffolds. Ms. Ortiz could not and cannot work in proximity to
unprotected heights, dangerous moving machinery, or other workplace
hazards. Ms. Ortiz could not and cannot operate a motor vehicle as part
of a job. Ms. Ortiz could and can speak, understand, and read Spanish
fluently but could not and cannot speak, understand, or read English
fluently (she can speak, understand, and read English some, but not
fluently). Tr. 23-24.
5.
Ms. Ortiz has no past relevant work. Tr. 26.
6.
Ms. Ortiz was born on December 10, 1971. At all times from July 15,
2011, the amended alleged onset date, through the date of this decision,
Ms. Ortiz was and is a younger individual age 18-44. Tr. 26.
7.
Ms. Ortiz is a high school graduate. She is literate and able to
communicate in English. Tr. 27.
8.
Transferability of job skills is not an issue because Ms. Ortiz does not
have past relevant work. Tr. 27.
9.
From July 15, 2011, the amended alleged onset date, through the date of
this decision, considering Ms. Ortiz’s age, education, work experience,
and residual functional capacity, there were and are jobs that existed and
exits in significant numbers in the regional and national economy that
Ms. Ortiz could and can perform. Tr. 27.
10.
Ms. Ortiz was not and is not under a disability, as defined in the Social
Security Act, from July 15, 2011, the amended alleged onset date,
through the date of this decision. Tr. 29.
10
V. Parties’ Arguments
Ortiz objects to the ALJ’s decision on one ground—the ALJ’s assessment of her residual
functional capacity (“RFC”) is not supported by substantial evidence because the ALJ did not
explain why limitations expressed in consultative examiner Dr. Bradford’s opinion were
excluded from his RFC assessment.
Doc. 15, pp. 11-12. In response, the Commissioner
submits that the ALJ did not err because the limitations expressed in Dr. Bradford’s opinion
regarding foot controls were included in the RFC and the ALJ was not required to address
environmental factors when none of the jobs identified by the VE involved those factors. Doc.
17, pp. 6-9.
VI. Law & Analysis
A reviewing court must affirm the Commissioner’s conclusions absent a determination
that the Commissioner has failed to apply the correct legal standards or has made findings of fact
unsupported by substantial evidence in the record. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Wright v. Massanari, 321
F.3d 611, 614 (6th Cir. 2003). “Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla of evidence but less
than a preponderance and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.” Besaw v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 966 F.2d 1028,
1030 (6th Cir. 1992) (quoting Brainard v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 889 F.2d 679, 681
(6th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (citations omitted)). A court “may not try the case de novo, nor
resolve conflicts in evidence, nor decide questions of credibility.” Garner v. Heckler, 745 F.2d
383, 387 (6th Cir. 1984).
Ortiz argues, “Although the ALJ credited [Dr. Bradford’s] opinion, [he] did not explain
why these limitations [regarding Ortiz never operating foot controls] were excluded from her
[RFC].” Doc. 15, p. 12. The Commissioner contends that the ALJ included this limitation in his
11
RFC assessment because he limited Ortiz to sedentary work, which does not require the ability to
operate foot controls. Tr. 17, p. 7.
20 C.F.R. § 416.967 provides,
(a) Sedentary work. Sedentary work involves lifting no more than 10 pounds at a time
and occasionally lifting or carrying articles like docket files, ledgers, and small tools.
Although a sedentary job is defined as one which involves sitting, a certain amount of
walking and standing is often necessary in carrying out job duties. Jobs are sedentary if
walking and standing are required occasionally and other sedentary criteria are met.
(b) Light work. Light work involves lifting no more than 20 pounds at a time with
frequent lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to 10 pounds. Even though the weight
lifted may be very little, a job is in this category when it requires a good deal of walking
or standing, or when it involves sitting most of the time with some pushing and pulling of
arm or leg controls. To be considered capable of performing a full or wide range of light
work, you must have the ability to do substantially all of these activities. If someone can
do light work, we determine that he or she can also do sedentary work, unless there are
additional limiting factors such as loss of fine dexterity or inability to sit for long periods
of time.
20 C.F.R. § 416.967(a)&(b)(emphasis added).
A plain reading of these regulations supports the Commissioner’s assertion that sedentary
work does not involve the use of foot controls. Indeed, the regulations make clear that work
performed sitting down with some pushing and pulling of foot controls is light work. Id. Thus,
the ALJ’s RFC assessment limiting Ortiz to sedentary work included, by its definition, a
limitation that the individual not be required to use foot controls. See also Hayes v. Sec’y of
Health & Human Servs., 945 F.2d 404, at *3 (6th Cir. Sept. 30, 1991) (unpublished) (“the
definition of sedentary work does not require operation of foot controls. 20 C.F.R. §
404.1567(a): compare with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(b) (definition of ‘light work’ lists operation of
foot controls as an element)”); Whitaker v. Astrue, 2011 WL 345833, at *8 (E.D. Tenn. Jan. 3,
2011) (ALJ found claimant could perform sedentary jobs; “[c]ommon sense would indicate that
none of [the jobs] would be precluded by an inability ... to operate a foot control with the left
12
foot,” report and recommendation adopted, 2011 WL 345925, at *1 (“A finding of sedentary
work [] is consistent with the physician’s opinions [providing a limitation in the ability to push
and pull by the lower extremity], and these limitations are necessarily included in the definition
of sedentary work.”); Harbour v. Astrue, 2008 WL 2222269, at *11 (W.D. Va. May 27, 2008)
(“it is clear that sedentary work does not require the pushing and pulling of leg-foot controls and,
therefore, the ALJ’s failure to specifically list such a limitation in his formal residual functional
capacity finding is, again, nothing more than harmless error.”); see also Social Security Ruling
83-10, Program Policy Statement, 1983 WL 31251, at *5;4 SSR 96-9p, 1996 WL 374185, at *6
(listing the exertional and postural limitations and restrictions for sedentary work:
lifting/carrying and pushing/pulling, standing/walking, sitting, alternate sitting and standing, and
manipulative limitations involving the hands and fingers).5 This is especially the case when, as
here, the ALJ specifically referenced the definition of sedentary work in his RFC assessment and
in his hypothetical question to the VE. Tr. 23 (decision citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.967(a)&(b) and
4
SSR 83-10 defines sedentary work as:
involving lifting no more than 10 pounds at a time and occasionally lifting or carrying articles like docket
files, ledgers, and small tools. Although sitting is involved, a certain amount of walking and standing is
often necessary in carrying out job duties. Jobs are sedentary if walking and standing are required
occasionally and other sedentary criteria are met. By its very nature, work performed primarily in a seated
position entails no significant stooping. Most unskilled sedentary jobs require good use of the hands and
fingers for repetitive hand-finger actions.
1983 WL 31251, at *5. Light work is defined as:
lifting no more than 20 pounds at a time with frequent lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to 10
pounds. Even though the weight lifted in a particular light job may be very little, a job is in this category
when it requires a good deal of walking or standing--the primary difference between sedentary and most
light jobs. A job is also in this category when it involves sitting most of the time but with some pushing and
pulling of arm-hand or leg-foot controls, which require greater exertion than in sedentary work; e.g.,
mattress sewing machine operator, motor-grader operator, and road-roller operator (skilled and semiskilled
jobs in these particular instances). Relatively few unskilled light jobs are performed in a seated position.
Id.
5
SSR 96-9p also contemplates the use of a medically required hand-held assistive device when standing or walking
while performing a sedentary job when the individual has an impairment of one or both lower extremities. 1996 WL
374185, at *7.
13
including the complete definition of sedentary and light work in a footnote); Tr. 54-55 (“our
hypothetical person could and can do work at the sedentary exertional level only with all that
implies with respect to exertional and postural limitations, and see 20 C.F.R. § 416.967, for
further details about what those are[.]”).
Ortiz also argues that the ALJ erred because he did not include a limitation or explain
why he did not include a limitation based on Dr. Bradford’s opinion that Ortiz should avoid
exposure to humidity. Doc. 15, p. 12. “In general, few occupations in the unskilled sedentary
occupational base require work in environments with extreme cold, extreme heat, wetness,
humidity, vibration, or unusual hazards. The ‘hazards’ defined in the [Selected Characteristics of
Occupations] are considered unusual in unskilled sedentary work.” SSR 96-9p, 1996 WL
374185, at *9. The jobs identified by the VE here—table worker, bench hand, and final
assembler—are no exception. See Doc. 17-1, p. 12 (Dictionary of Occupational Titles (“DOT”)
for table worker, “Wet and/or Humid: Not Present—activity or condition does not exist”), 1991
WL 680217; Doc. 17-1, p. 8 (DOT for bench hand (same)), 1991 WL 679344; Doc. 17-1, p. 4
(DOT for final assembler (same)), 1991 WL 679271.6
In sum, by limiting Ortiz to sedentary work, the ALJ’s RFC included restrictions
involving the use of foot controls and exposure to environmental factors such as humidity;
moreover, the VE identified jobs that did not require work outside those restrictions. Ortiz’s
arguments to the contrary are without merit and the ALJ’s decision must be affirmed. See
Wright, 321 F.3d at 614.
6
Additionally, none of these jobs include the ability to use foot controls.
14
VII. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth herein, the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED.
Dated: November 2, 2015
Kathleen B. Burke
United States Magistrate Judge
15
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?