Jordan-Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
23
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; OVERRULING Plaintiff's Objection. This case is CLOSED. Signed by Judge Algenon L. Marbley on 6/7/2019. (cw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
STEPHANIE R. JORDAN-SMITH,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 2:18-cv-286
JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY
Magistrate Judge Vascura
OPINION & ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s February 1, 2019, Report
and Recommendation (ECF No. 20), which recommended that Plaintiff’s Statement of Errors
(ECF No. 14) be OVERRULED and that the Commissioner’s decision be AFFIRMED. This
Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety based on an independent
consideration of the analysis therein.
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, Stephanie R. Jordan-Smith, filed applications for a period of disability,
disability insurance benefits, and supplemental security income on September 13, 2013, alleging
a disability onset on March 1, 2012. (R. at 15). After Plaintiff’s applications were initially denied
on May 14, 2014, and denied again on October 31, 3014, Plaintiff sought a hearing. Id. Plaintiff,
represented by counsel, appeared and testified before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) at a
hearing on January 6, 2017. Id. In addition, a vocational expert (“VE”) appeared and testified at
the hearing. Id.
The ALJ found Plaintiff was not disabled under the meaning of the Social Security Act.
(R. at 35). In the decision denying Plaintiff benefits, the ALJ followed the required five-step
1
sequential analysis process for disability benefits claims. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4). At step
one, the ALJ found the Plaintiff had not engaged in any substantial gainful activity since March
1, 2012. (R. at 18). At step two, the ALJ found Plaintiff suffered from severe impairments of
“idiopathic intracranial hypertension; migraine headaches; nuclear sclerosis of the eyes; allergic
rhinitis; RC tear; morbid obesity; an adjustment disorder with mixed depression and anxiety; and
borderline intellectual functioning.” Id. Further, the ALJ found Plaintiff had non-severe
impairments of obstructive sleep apnea and gastroesophageal reflux disease. Id.
At step three, the ALJ found Plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of
impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of one of the listed impairments
described in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. (R. at 18-19). At step four, the ALJ set
forth Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”) and stated Plaintiff had “. . .the residual
functional capacity to perform light work. . ..” (R. at 22). In light of the RFC, the ALJ found
Plaintiff’s allegations regarding her symptoms and limitations were not generally supported by
substantial evidence. (R. at 31). Coupled with the VE’s testimony, the ALJ decided even though
Plaintiff is unable to perform her past work, she can execute jobs that exist in significant
numbers in the national economy, pursuant to step five. (R. at 33-34). Therefore, the ALJ
determined Plaintiff was not “disabled” under the term’s meaning in the Social Security Act. (R.
at 35).
Plaintiff alleges in her Statement of Errors that the ALJ’s decision is not supported by
substantial evidence because the ALJ erred in his credibility analysis, and the ALJ improperly
relied upon the VE’s testimony at step five because it was based on a hypothetical question that
was incomplete and inaccurate. (ECF No. 14).
2
On February 1, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation
recommending that this Court overrule Plaintiff’s Statement of Errors and affirm the decision of
the Commissioner of Social Security. (ECF No. 20). The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s
request for review. (R. at 1). Plaintiff then objected to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that the
ALJ’s credibility analysis is supported by substantial evidence. (ECF No. 21).
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Upon objection to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, this Court must
“make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
This de novo review, in turn, requires the Court to “determine whether the record as a whole
contains substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s decision” and to “determine whether the ALJ
applied the correct legal criteria.” Inman v. Astrue, 920 F. Supp. 2d 861, 863 (S.D. Ohio 2013).
Substantial evidence means relevant evidence that “a reasonable mind might accept as adequate
to support a conclusion.” Ealy v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 594 F.3d 504, 512 (6th Cir. 2010)
(quotation omitted). Substantial evidence constitutes “more than a mere scintilla, but only so
much as would be required to prevent judgment as a matter of law against the Commissioner if
this case were being tried to a jury.” Inman, 920 F. Supp. 2d at 863 (citing Foster v. Bowen,
853 F.2d 483, 486 (6th Cir. 1988)).
III.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
A. Credibility Determination
Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that the ALJ’s credibility analysis is
supported by substantial evidence. (ECF No. 21). The Social Security Rulings (“SSR”) organize
decisions relating to Social Security Administration programs. SSR 96-7p governs the standard
3
in evaluation of symptoms in disability claims. More specifically, SSR 96-7p guides assessment
of an individual’s statements. Under SSR 96-7p, an ALJ must evaluate the overall credibility of
a plaintiff’s statements to determine credibility. SSR 96-7p, 1996 WL 374186 (July 2, 1996).
But, SSR 16-3p supersedes 96-7p, and requires an ALJ to evaluate the intensity and persistence
of symptoms to determine the extent that those symptoms limit a plaintiff’s ability to perform
work-related activities. SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304 (Oct. 25, 2017). SSR 16-3p’s purpose is
to clarify the rules regarding subjective symptom evaluation, not to substantially change them.
Brothers v. Berryhill, No. 5:16-cv-01942, 2017 WL 2912535, at *10 (N.D. Ohio June 22, 2017).
This provision allows for an evaluation of the consistency of a plaintiff’s statements as opposed
to an evaluation of the plaintiff’s character. SSR 16-3p at *8. SSR 16-3p ensures an ALJ
considers a plaintiff’s statements made during the administrative review process, any attempts to
seek medical treatment for symptoms, and change of symptoms over time when evaluating
credibility. Id.
SSR 16-3p lays out a two-part analysis. Id. This analysis requires an ALJ to ask “whether
there is an underlying medically determinable physical impairment” that could reasonably be
expected to produce the plaintiff’s symptoms. If the ALJ finds such impairment exists, then she
must “evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the symptoms” on the
individual’s ability to do work related activities. Rogers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234,
247 (6th Cir. 2007). Here, the ALJ found that although Plaintiff’s impairments could reasonably
be expected to cause the alleged symptoms, Plaintiff’s statements concerning the intensity,
persistence, and limiting effects of those symptoms were not wholly consistent with the evidence
presented in the record. (R. at 23).
4
Moreover, credibility determinations based on “subjective complaints of pain” are made by
the ALJ. Allen v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 561 F.3d 646, 652 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Siterlet v.
Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 823 F.2d 918, 920 (6th Cir. 1987)). This credibility
determination must be supported by substantial evidence, which requires an ALJ to consider the
entire record as a whole. Brothers, 2017 WL 2912535, at *11 (citing Rogers, 486 F.3d at 249).
An ALJ’s determination of a credibility decision must be sufficiently specific, clearly articulated,
and explain the weight given to the individual’s statements and the reason for such weight. SSR
96-7p, 1996 WL 374186 at *2. Additionally, an ALJ must consider factors relating to the
severity of symptoms such as plaintiff’s daily activities, effectiveness of medication, and
intensity of pain. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).
In this case, the ALJ rightly determined objective evidence did not support Plaintiff’s
subjective complaints; this conclusion also allowed the ALJ to revise his assessment of
Plaintiff’s credibility. (R. at 23). First, the ALJ found Plaintiff’s testimony of her intent to return
to work was inconsistent with Plaintiff’s applying for disability. (R. at 29-30). Plaintiff’s
intention to return to work connotes a belief that she could currently engage in work related
activities. (R. at 29). Plaintiff’s belief in her ability to work conflicts with the claim that she is
disabled. Due to this inconsistency, the Magistrate Judge did not err by considering Plaintiff’s
intent to return to work in assessing her credibility. See Hickey v. Colvin, No. 3:14CV00264,
2015 WL 4575179, at *7 (S.D. Ohio July 29, 2015) (affirming credibility assessment partly due
to the plaintiff’s expressed desire to return to work or school).
Moreover, the Magistrate did not err by concluding the ALJ reasonably considered the
whole record and properly discounted Plaintiff’s credibility based on her activities of daily
living. (R. at 29-31). The ALJ stated in his decision he considered all evidence including every
5
claim of physical pain made by the Plaintiff. (R. at 20-29). Subjective complaints of pain or other
symptoms are relevant to establishing a disability but are not conclusive evidence. Warner v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 375 F.3d 387, 392 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing Buxton v. Halter, 246 F.3d 762,
763 (6th Cir. 2001)) (finding plaintiff’s assessment of pain partially credible due to an
inconsistency between his own testimony of daily activities and the claim of disabling pain).
The Code of Federal Regulations states that daily activities may be used as a factor in
considering symptom severity. § 404.159(c)(3). An ALJ is not required to discuss every piece of
evidence used to justify the final decision. Conner v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 658 F. App’x 248,
254 (6th Cir. 2016) (citing Thacker v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 99 F. App’x 661, 665 (6th Cir.
2004)). In this case, even though Plaintiff is unable to help her daughter with homework and
requires help from her mother, those are not conclusive in regard to her daily activities. (R. at 30,
65-66, 756). The record indicates Plaintiff was able to operate a motor vehicle, even if she opted
not to, acted as head of household, and even occasionally helped her husband with work. (R. at
30). Also, Plaintiff shared the responsibility of cooking and cleaning with her mother, indicating
Plaintiff was not fully reliant on her mother for help. Id. Additionally, the record notes the doctor
suggested extra help, but Plaintiff was not prescribed home health care. Id. Plaintiff says she still
takes her daughter to activities even though she cannot coach anymore. (R. at 57, 756). Even
though Plaintiff says she used to stay in touch with her friends, she still talks to her family on a
consistent basis. (R. at 756). The combination of these factors the ALJ considered show he relied
on more than the consultative examination. The daily activities Plaintiff can accomplish,
weighed against the evidence in totality, presents an inconsistency with Plaintiff’s claim of
disabling pain. In light of the evidence taken as a whole, the Magistrate did not err by concluding
the ALJ was justified in considering Plaintiff’s daily activities to assess credibility.
6
The Magistrate did not err by finding Plaintiff made inconsistent statements and
concluding her complaints of pain were not fully credible. The record indicates Plaintiff was not
observed in acute distress on multiple occasions despite Plaintiff’s claim of significant pain. (R.
at 29-30). An ALJ can rely on medical opinions of severity of distress to partly determine
credibility. See Ison v. Acting Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 2:16-CV-00464, 2017 WL 4124586, at
*10 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 18, 2017) (finding there was no evidence that plaintiff was in acute distress
after reviewing medical opinions of physicians and medical examiners). Here, Plaintiff did not
appear to be in acute distress during multiple examinations given by various physicians. (R. at 30
(citing R. at 402, 509, 514, 772)). Thus, the Magistrate did not err in adopting the ALJ’s finding.
The Magistrate did not err in affirming the ALJ’s decision to give less credit to Plaintiff’s
testimony because she did not seek consistent mental health treatment. (R. at 23). Plaintiff argues
she never testified the depression was disabling. However, Plaintiff did say the depression
limited her ability to work. (R. at 101-02). In addition, Plaintiff tested positive for depression and
took medication for these symptoms. (R. at 28, 810). Since the depressive symptoms did have a
negative effect on Plaintiff’s ability to work, the Magistrate did not err in adopting the ALJ’s
ruling to discredit Plaintiff’s credibility.
Finally, the Magistrate did not err in holding the ALJ’s reasoning that issues of noncompliance detract from Plaintiff’s credibility. Plaintiff’s statements “may be less credible
if…the medical reports or records show the individual is not following the treatment as
prescribed and there are no good reasons for this failure.” Collins v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No.
3:16-CV-356, 2017 WL 3124158, at *5 (S.D. Ohio July 24, 2017) (citing SSR 96-7p, 1996 WL
374186, at *7). Plaintiff offers lack of insurance as the reason for her noncompliance. However,
the ALJ noted many instances when Plaintiff’s noncompliance was separate from her lack of
7
insurance such as only taking medication as needed instead of as prescribed and failing to use the
CPAP as directed. (R. at 376). Moreover, even though Plaintiff still had headaches with
medication and placement of the shunt, Plaintiff testified the headaches “were not as bad as they
used to be.” (R. at 577). In addition, the doctor noted Plaintiff’s headaches after medication were
controlled, considered intermittent, and mild to moderate severity. (R. at 578, 1404). Further,
Plaintiff said her symptoms were worse when she did not take her medication as directed. (R. at
25, 1309). Due to the success of prescribed medication and additional prescribed remedies,
Plaintiff’s noncompliance detracts from her credibility.
Ultimately, the Magistrate properly evaluated Plaintiff’s allegations relating to her
symptoms and substantial evidence supports the credibility assessment. The findings were within
the ALJ’s discretion. Blakely v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399, 406 (6th Cir. 2009) (giving
the ALJ a “zone of choice” to make a credibility determination as long as that choice is
reasonable). Thus, the Court will not re-weigh the evidence. The Magistrate’s decision to adopt
the ALJ’s reasoning is not in error.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation are OVERRULED. The Court hereby ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Algenon L. Marbley
ALGENON L. MARBLEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATED: June 7, 2019
8
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?