Morales Feliciano v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
20
Memorandum Opinion and Order affirming the decision of the Commissioner (Related Doc # 1 ). Signed by Magistrate Judge William H. Baughman, Jr. on 7/31/2014. (S,G)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
VILMA ESTHER MORALES FELICIANO, )
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
v.
)
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, )
)
)
Defendant.
CASE NO. 4:13 CV 1639
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
WILLIAM H. BAUGHMAN, JR.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
Introduction
A.
Nature of the case and proceedings
Before me1 is an action by Vilma Esther Morales Feliciano under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)
for judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying her
applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income.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
1
ECF # 15. The parties have consented to my exercise of jurisdiction.
2
ECF # 1.
3
ECF # 10.
4
ECF # 11.
5
ECF # 5.
6
ECF # 12.
7
ECF # 13 (Morales Feliciano’s brief); ECF # 16 (Commissioner’s brief); ECF # 17
(Morales Feliciano’s reply brief).
supplemental charts8 and the fact sheet.9 They have participated in a telephonic oral
argument.10
B.
The decision of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”)
The ALJ, whose decision became the final decision of the Commissioner, found that
Morales Feliciano had the following severe impairments: degenerative disc disease with
central canal stenosis L5-S1, mild osteoarthritis of the neck, obesity, adjustment disorder
with anxiety, and depression.11
After concluding that the relevant impairments did not meet or equal a listing, the ALJ
made the following finding regarding Morales Feliciano’s residual functional capacity
(“RFC”):
After careful consideration of the entire record, the undersigned finds that the
claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform light work as defined
in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b) except occasionally climb ramps or
stairs, never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds, and occasional stooping,
kneeling, crouching, or crawling; no rapid production or pace work; work
limited to simple, routine and repetitive tasks involving only simple,
work-related decisions, with few workplace changes; only occasional and
superficial interaction with the public and occasional interaction with
coworkers; limited ability to understand spoken English and no written
instructions in English.12
8
ECF # 16-1 (Commissioner’s charts); ECF # 13-2 (Morales Feliciano’s charts).
9
ECF # 13-1 (Morales Feliciano’s fact sheet).
10
ECF # 19.
11
Transcript (“Tr.”) at 17.
12
Id. at 19.
-2-
Based on that residual functional capacity, the ALJ found Morales Feliciano capable of
performing her past relevant work as a cook’s helper “as actually performed.”13
Based on an answer to a hypothetical question posed to the vocational expert at the
hearing setting forth the residual functional capacity finding quoted above, the ALJ made an
alternative finding that a significant number of jobs existed locally and nationally that
Morales Feliciano could perform.14 The ALJ, therefore, found Morales Feliciano not under
a disability.15
C.
Issues on judicial review and decision
Morales Feliciano 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,
Morales Feliciano presents the following two issues for judicial review:
•
At step five the ALJ ignored the vocational ramifications of Morales
Feliciano being a Spanish-speaking individual.
•
At step five the ALJ ignored counsel’s questioning of the VE.16
For the reasons that follow, I will conclude that the ALJ’s finding of no disability is
supported by substantial evidence and, therefore, must be affirmed.
13
Id. at 22.
14
Id. at 23.
15
Id.
16
ECF # 13 at 1.
-3-
Analysis
A.
Standard of review
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. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 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 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.17
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.18 The court may not disturb the Commissioner’s
findings, even if the preponderance of the evidence favors the claimant.19
17
Buxton v. Halter, 246 F.3d 762, 772 (6th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted).
18
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 *6 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 12,
2008).
19
Rogers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234, 241 (6th Cir. 2007).
-4-
I will review the findings of the ALJ at issue here consistent with that deferential
standard. The relevant evidence from the administrative record will be discussed in detail
as part of the following analysis.
B.
Application of standard – ability to do past relevant work as performed
At step four of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ found that Morales
Feliciano could perform her past relevant work as a cook’s helper “as actually performed.”20
This finding, if supported by substantial evidence, supports the conclusion that Morales
Feliciano is not disabled.21 Morales Feliciano’s briefing does not challenge the step-four
finding.
My independent review of the record confirms that the past relevant work finding has
the support of substantial evidence. At the hearing, the VE and the ALJ questioned Morales
Feliciano extensively about her past relevant work as a cook’s helper.22 Based on that
testimony, the VE opined that Morales Feliciano could do the work as a cook’s helper as she
performed it. This suffices to adequately support the unchallenged, step-four finding.
Moreover, Morales Feliciano left her job as a cook’s assistant because her family relocated
from Michigan to Ohio, not because of limitations caused by her impairments.23 Although
she had some mental health treatment in Michigan, the records after moving to Ohio contain
20
Tr. at 22.
21
E.g., O’Neal v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:12 CV 246, 2013 WL 620377, at *7
(S.D. Ohio Feb. 19, 2013).
22
Tr. at 70-72.
23
Id. at 66-67.
-5-
only sporadic references to depression with treatment by Effexor to which she responded
positively.24
Conclusion
Substantial evidence supports the finding of the Commissioner that Morales Feliciano
had no disability. The denial of Morales Feliciano’s applications is affirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 31, 2014
24
s/ William H. Baughman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge
Id. at 21, 299, 321.
-6-
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?