Guevara v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
24
Memorandum Opinion and Order reversing the decision of the Commissioner and remanding for further reconsideration. The ALJ failed to explain why he omitted the limitations from the RFC and the hypothetical to the VE. Signed by Magistrate Judge William H. Baughman, Jr on 9/10/18. (H,D)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
EMILIA H. GUEVARA,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 1:17 CV 1754
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
WILLIAM H. BAUGHMAN, JR.
MEMORANDUM OPINION &
ORDER
Introduction
Emilia Guevara sought disability and supplemental insurance income benefits
because of mental impairments. The Commissioner found her capable of performing a
significant number of jobs existing in the national economy. This decision lacks the
support of substantial evidence in the record. I, therefore, reverse the Commissioner’s
decision and remand for further proceedings.
Analysis
A.
State agency reviewing psychologists’ opinions
The briefs and oral argument brought into focus one dispositive issue:
The ALJ assigned the opinions of two state agency reviewing psychologists
great weight. The ALJ nevertheless eliminated two limitations opined by them
from the RFC and did not include the limitations in the hypothetical posed to the
vocational expert (“VE”). The VE testified that if the RFC included either of
these limitations, there would be no jobs existing in significant numbers that
Guevara could perform. Does substantial evidence support the exclusion of
these limitations from the RFC and the hypothetical?
After review of Guevara’s medical records, including the report of psychologist
David House, Ph.D., a consulting examiner, two state agency psychologists opined that
Guevara (1) had the ability to maintain attention and concentration occasionally when her
symptoms were not exacerbated; and (2) required routine supervision, reminders, and
guidance to stay on task.1 The ALJ did not included these limitations in the RFC2 or the
hypotheticals posed to the VE.3 Guevara’s counsel posed each of these limitations to the
VE, as additional to those included in the ALJ’s hypothetical.4 In response, the VE testified
that the addition of either limitation would preclude all work.5
ALJs must consider opinions on the nature and severity of impairments offered by
state agency consultants.6 While the ALJ is not bound by the findings made by these nonexamining physicians and psychologists, “they may not ignore these opinions and must
explain the weight given to the opinions in their decisions.”7 The factors set forth in the
regulations that are to be considered when evaluating the opinions of treating and other
sources also apply to opinions rendered by non-examining sources.8
1
ECF No. 11, Transcript (“Tr.”) at 60, 73, 88, and 102.
Id. at 16.
3
Id. at 43-44.
4
Id. at 45-46.
5
Id.
6
See SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, SOCIAL SECURITY RULING 96-6P, POLICY
INTERPRETATION RULING TITLES II AND XVI: CONSIDERATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
FINDINGS OF FACT BY STATE AGENCY MEDICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS AND
OTHER PROGRAM PHYSICIANS AND PSYCHOLOGISTS AT THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
AND APPEALS COUNCIL LEVELS OF ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW; MEDICAL EQUIVALENCE,
1996 WL 374180 (1996).
7
Id.
8
Id.
2
2
An ALJ cannot avoid reversal by merely citing exhibits in the record that might
support his findings without discussing the content of those exhibits and explaining how
that content provides support.9 Nor can counsel for the Commissioner save a decision from
reversal by citing to evidence in the record not cited and adequately discussed by the ALJ.10
It is for the ALJ, not the court or Commissioner’s counsel, to “build a logical bridge from
the evidence to the conclusion.”11
Here, despite giving the state agency reviewing psychologists’ opinions great
weight, and the VE’s testimony that either of two of limitations opined by the state agency
reviewing psychologists would preclude all work, the ALJ failed to explain why he omitted
the limitations from the RFC and the hypothetical to the VE.12 This failure requires a
remand for reconsideration.
B.
Additional challenges
This remand makes it unnecessary to address Guevara’s two other challenges to the
ALJ’s opinion: (1) Dr. House’s opinion that marked impairment of her coping skills would
be significantly disruptive in the work environment; and (2) the lack of substantial evidence
supporting the finding that Guevara could perform the three jobs identified by the VE
because of the limitations imposed by her mental impairments.13
9
Each of these issues
Smith v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 5:13 CV 870, 2014 WL 1944247, at *7 (N.D. Ohio
May 14, 2014).
10
Sharp v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:14-cv-523, 2015 WL 3545251 (S.D. Ohio June 4,
2015) (citing Keeton v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 583 Fed. App’x 515, 524 (6th Cir. 2014)),
report and recommendation adopted by 2015 WL 3952331 (S.D. Ohio June 29, 2015).
11
Hale v. Colvin, No. 3:13cv182, 2014 WL 868124, *8 (S.D. Ohio March 5, 2014).
12
Id. at 20-22.
13
ECF No. 15 (Guevara’s brief) at 1.
3
poses a substantial challenge to the Commissioner’s no disability finding and should be
reviewed and reconsidered on remand.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 10, 2018
s/ William H. Baughman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge
4
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?