Pritchett v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 19

Memorandum Opinion and Order that the decision of the Commissioner denying Pritchett supplemental security income is affirmed. Signed by Magistrate Judge William H. Baughman, Jr., on 2/28/19. (D,Ky)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

TONY PRITCHETT,

Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:18 CV 0523

MAGISTRATE JUDGE
WILLIAM H. BAUGHMAN, JR.

MEMORANDUM OPINION &
ORDER

Introduction
Before me1 is an action by Tony Pritchett under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for judicial
review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying his application
for supplemental security income (“SSI”).2 The Commissioner has answered3 and filed
the transcript of the administrative record.4 Under my initial5 and procedural6 orders,
the parties have briefed their positions7 and filed supplemental charts8 and the fact sheet.9
For the reasons set forth below, I affirm the ALJ’s denial of benefits.

1

ECF No. 13. The parties have consented to my exercise of jurisdiction.
ECF No. 1.
3
ECF No. 9.
4
ECF No. 10.
5
ECF No. 6.
6
ECF No. 12.
7
ECF No. 15 (Pritchett’s brief); ECF No. 17 (Commissioner’s brief).
8
ECF No. 15, Attachment 1 (Pritchett’s charts); ECF No. 17, Attachment 1
(Commissioner’s charts).
9
ECF No. 14 (Pritchett’s fact sheet).
2

Facts
A.

Background facts and decision of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”)
Pritchett, who was 20 years old at the time of the hearing,10 completed the 12th

grade in special education.11 He had no past relevant work.12
The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), whose decision became the final decision
of the Commissioner, found that Pritchett had a severe impairment consisting of borderline
intellectual functioning.13
The ALJ found Pritchett had the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform a
full range of work at all exertional levels, with several non-exertional limitations.14 Based
on the testimony of the vocational expert (“VE”) at the hearing, the ALJ determined that a
significant number of jobs existed nationally that Pritchett could perform.15 The ALJ,
therefore, found Pritchett not under a disability.16

10

Id.
Id.
12
ECF No. 10, Transcript (“Tr.”) at 48.
13
Id. at 38.
14
Id. at 41.
15
Id. at 49.
16
Id. at 50.
11

2

B.

Issues on judicial review
Pritchett asks for reversal of the Commissioner’s decision on the ground that it does

not have the support of substantial evidence in the administrative record. Specifically,
Pritchett presents the following issues for judicial review:
$

Whether the ALJ’s Step Three finding that Pritchett’s impairments
did not meet Listing 12.05B lacked substantial evidence where the
record shows that Pritchett has a full scale IQ score below 70 and has
significant deficits in adaptive functioning.

$

Whether the ALJ’s RFC finding lacks substantial evidence when the
ALJ failed to adequately evaluate Pritchett’s allegations of cognitive
difficulties.17

Analysis
A.

Applicable legal principles

1.

Substantial evidence
The Sixth Circuit in Buxton v. Halter reemphasized the standard of review

applicable to decisions of the ALJs in disability cases:
Congress has provided for federal court review of Social
Security administrative decisions. However, the scope of
review is limited under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g): “The findings of
the Secretary as to any fact, if supported by substantial
evidence, shall be conclusive. . . .” In other words, on review
of the Commissioner’s decision that claimant is not totally
disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act, the
only issue reviewable by this court is whether the decision is
supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is
“‘more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence

17

ECF No. 15 at 1.
3

as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.’”
The findings of the Commissioner are not subject to reversal
merely because there exists in the record substantial evidence
to support a different conclusion. This is so because there is a
“zone of choice” within which the Commissioner can act,
without the fear of court interference.18
Viewed in the context of a jury trial, all that is necessary to affirm is that reasonable minds
could reach different conclusions on the evidence. If such is the case, the Commissioner
survives “a directed verdict” and wins.19 The court may not disturb the Commissioner’s
findings, even if the preponderance of the evidence favors the claimant.20
I will review the findings of the ALJ at issue here consistent with that deferential
standard.
B.

Application of legal principles
This case presents a Step Three and Step Four challenge to the ALJ’s finding of no

disability. As an overview, the opinions of all acceptable medical sources – state agency
sources, a consultative examiner, and a medical expert – agree that although Pritchett has
a qualifying I.Q. score under Listing 12.05B, he does not have the requisite deficits in
adaptive functioning to meet or equal the listing under that section. Further, these sources
opined as to Pritchett’s mental limitations, which the ALJ incorporated into her RFC

18

Buxton v. Halter, 246 F.3d 762, 772-73 (6th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted).
LeMaster v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 802 F.2d 839, 840 (6th Cir. 1986);
Tucker v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 3:06CV403, 2008 WL 399573, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Feb.
12, 2008).
20
Rogers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234, 241 (6th Cir. 2007).
19

4

finding. This RFC, presented in a hypothetical to the VE, elicited an opinion that a
significant number of jobs existed in the national economy that Pritchett could perform.
With no support of any opinion from acceptable medical sources, Pritchett counters
with school records and documentation concerning his efforts to obtain employment
through vocational guidance services. Participation in a program at University Hospital
resulted in an opinion from a case manager that Pritchett could not successfully undertake
independent, full-time employment. At the time of the hearing, Pritchett was working at
Lincoln Electric as a janitor but experiencing performance difficulties.
The ALJ acknowledged that Pritchett has the I.Q. scores that qualify for Listing
12.05B. She also acknowledged Pritchett’s performance issues at University Hospital
and Lincoln Electric.21
The ALJ also discussed the educational records and testing upon which Pritchett
relies.22 And the ALJ discussed the evaluation by Pritchett’s vocational guidance services
case manager, giving it partial weight and articulating some reasons for the weight
assigned.23 Because that case manager is not an acceptable medical source, the analysis
need not rise to the level of that required for acceptable sources.
Pritchett argues that in the four domains relevant under Listing 12.05B(2) –
understand, remember, and apply information; interact with others; concentrate, persist, or

21

Tr. at 42, 44-45.
Id. at 42-43.
23
Id. at 48.
22

5

maintain pace; and adapt and manage oneself – he has at least an extreme limitation in one
domain or a marked limitation in two. Each of the acceptable medical sources who
addressed those domains found otherwise.24
As a secondary argument, Pritchett urges that the RFC should have incorporated
greater limitations that would have required a finding at Step Five that there was not a
significant number of jobs in the national economy that Pritchett could perform. Here,
Pritchett relies heavily on his two work experiences – University Hospitals and Lincoln
Electric, the problems that he has experienced at each, and the opinion of his case manager,
to establish that he cannot sustain independent, full-time employment.

The

Commissioner relies on the opinions of the consultative examiner and the medical expert
to the contrary. 25 Pritchett’s counsel questioned the VE at the hearing about chronic
distraction and being off-task, and the VE replied that this could preclude employment.26
Nevertheless, the ALJ fairly articulated review of the entire record, including the school
records and work experiences upon which Pritchett relies, and came down on the side of
no disability. Given the unanimity of the acceptable medical source opinions as to
limitations – which were consistent with the RFC findings by the ALJ – and the ALJ’s
acknowledgement of the evidence for and against Pritchett’s position, substantial evidence
supports the ALJ’s no disability finding.27

24

Id. at 106-10, 122, 386-87, and 665.
ECF No. 17 at 20-21.
26
Tr. at 93-94.
27
See Atterbury v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 871 F.2d 567, 570-72 (6th Cir. 1989)
25

6

The final observation of the Commissioner in her brief is particularly apt: “While
[Pritchett] would have weighed the opinion evidence differently, he has shown no error in
the ALJ’s analysis that would warrant a remand for further consideration.”28

Conclusion
Substantial evidence supports the finding of the Commissioner that Pritchett had no
disability.

Accordingly, the decision of the Commissioner denying Pritchett

supplemental security income is affirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 28, 2019

s/ William H. Baughman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

(consistency of medical expert testimony and evidence of record constitutes substantial
evidence to support the Commissioner’s decision).
28
ECF No. 17 at 21.
7