Rutledge v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 20

DECISION AND ENTRY: (1) AFFIRMING THE ALJS NON-DISABILITY FINDING; AND (2) TERMINATING THIS CASE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman on 4/5/19. (pb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
SACIA E. RUTLEDGE,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 3:18-cv-49

vs.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman
(Consent Case)

Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
DECISION AND ENTRY: (1) AFFIRMING THE ALJ’S NON-DISABILITY FINDING;
AND (2) TERMINATING THIS CASE
______________________________________________________________________________
This Social Security disability benefits appeal is before the undersigned for disposition
based upon the parties’ consent. Doc. 11. At issue is whether the Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”) erred in finding Plaintiff not “disabled” and therefore unentitled to Disability Insurance
Benefits (“DIB”) and/or Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”).1 This case is before the Court on
Plaintiff’s Statement of Errors (doc. 14), the Commissioner’s memorandum in opposition (doc.
16), Plaintiff’s reply (doc. 18), the administrative record (doc. 7),2 and the record as a whole.
I.
A.

Procedural History

Plaintiff filed for DIB and SSI alleging a disability onset date of November 7, 2007.
PageID 206-15. Plaintiff claims disability as a result of a number of alleged impairments
including, inter alia, right knee chondromalacia3 and migraines. PageID 482.

“The Commissioner’s regulations governing the evaluation of disability for DIB and SSI are
identical . . . and are found at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520, and 20 C.F.R. § 416.920 respectively.” Colvin v.
Barnhart, 475 F.3d 727, 730 (6th Cir. 2007). Citations in this Decision and Entry to DIB regulations are
made with full knowledge of the corresponding SSI regulations, and vice versa.
2
Hereafter, citations to the electronically-filed administrative record will refer only to the PageID.
3
“Chondromalacia is irritation of the undersurface of the knee cap caused by the knee cap rubbing
against one side of the knee joint.” Roberts v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 3:10CV-23, 2011 WL 798138, at
*4 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 1, 2011).
1

After an initial denial of her application, Plaintiff received a hearing before ALJ Mary
Withum on December 7, 2012. PageID 84-111. ALJ Withum issued a written decision on January
19, 2013 finding Plaintiff not disabled. PageID 63-77. After the Appeals Council denied
Plaintiff’s request for review, Plaintiff appealed to this Court. PageID 49. Following the filing of
the parties’ joint stipulation for remand, the Court reversed ALJ Withum’s non-disability finding
and remanded the case for further proceedings. PageID 1337.
On remand, the Appeals Council returned the matter to an ALJ for resolution. PageID
1337-38. ALJ Mark Hockensmith held a hearing on September 14, 2016, and issued a decision
finding Plaintiff not disabled on December 8, 2016. PageID 1228-47, 1256-99. Specifically, ALJ
Hockensmith found at Step Five that, based upon Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”)
to perform a reduced range of light work, 4 “there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the
national economy that [Plaintiff] can perform[.]” PageID 1238-47. Thereafter, the Appeals
Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review, making ALJ Hockensmith’s non-disability finding
the final administrative decision of the Commissioner. PageID 1216. See Casey v. Sec’y of Health
& Human Servs., 987 F.2d 1230, 1233 (6th Cir. 1993). Plaintiff then filed this timely appeal.
Cook v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 480 F.3d 432, 435 (6th Cir. 2007). The non-disability finding by
ALJ Hockensmith (hereinafter, “ALJ”) is now before the Court for review.
B.

Evidence of Record

The evidence of record is adequately summarized in the ALJ’s decision (PageID 1228-47),
Plaintiff’s Statement of Errors (doc. 14), the Commissioner’s memorandum in opposition (doc.

Light work “involves lifting no more than 20 pounds at a time with frequent lifting or carrying of
objects weighing up to 10 pounds” and “requires a good deal of walking or standing, or . . . sitting most of
the time with some pushing and pulling of arm or leg controls.” Id. § 404.1567(b). An individual who can
perform light work is presumed also able to perform sedentary work. Id. 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.” Id. § 404.1567(a).
2
4

16), and Plaintiff’s reply (doc. 18). The undersigned incorporates all of the foregoing and sets
forth the facts relevant to this appeal herein.
II.
A.

Standard of Review

The Court’s inquiry on a Social Security appeal is to determine (1) whether the ALJ’s nondisability finding is supported by substantial evidence, and (2) whether the ALJ employed the
correct legal criteria. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Bowen v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 478 F.3d 742, 745-46
(6th Cir. 2007). In performing this review, the Court must consider the record as a whole. Hephner
v. Mathews, 574 F.2d 359, 362 (6th Cir. 1978).
Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). When
substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s denial of benefits, that finding must be affirmed, even if
substantial evidence also exists in the record upon which the ALJ could have found Plaintiff
disabled. Buxton v. Halter, 246 F.3d 762, 772 (6th Cir. 2001). Thus, the ALJ has a “‘zone of
choice’ within which he [or she] can act without the fear of court interference.” Id. at 773.
The second judicial inquiry -- reviewing the correctness of the ALJ’s legal analysis -- may
result in reversal even if the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record.
Rabbers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 582 F.3d 647, 651 (6th Cir. 2009). “[A] decision of the
Commissioner will not be upheld where the [Social Security Administration] fails to follow its
own regulations and where that error prejudices a claimant on the merits or deprives the claimant
of a substantial right.” Bowen, 478 F.3d at 746.
B.

“Disability” Defined

To be eligible for disability benefits, a claimant must be under a “disability” as defined by
the Social Security Act. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). Narrowed to its statutory meaning, a
3

“disability” includes physical and/or mental impairments that are both “medically determinable”
and severe enough to prevent a claimant from (1) performing his or her past job and (2) engaging
in “substantial gainful activity” that is available in the regional or national economies. Id.
Administrative regulations require a five-step sequential evaluation for disability
determinations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). Although a dispositive finding at any step ends the
ALJ’s review, see Colvin v. Barnhart, 475 F.3d 727, 730 (6th Cir. 2007), the complete sequential
review poses five questions:
1.

Has the claimant engaged in substantial gainful activity;

2.

Does the claimant suffer from one or more severe impairments;

3.

Do the claimant’s severe impairments, alone or in combination, meet or
equal the criteria of an impairment set forth in the Commissioner’s Listing
of Impairments (the “Listings”), 20 C.F.R. Subpart P, Appendix 1;

4.

Considering the claimant’s RFC, can he or she perform his or her past
relevant work; and

5.

Assuming the claimant can no longer perform his or her past relevant work
-- and also considering the claimant’s age, education, past work experience,
and RFC -- do significant numbers of other jobs exist in the national
economy which the claimant can perform?

20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4); see also Miller v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 181 F. Supp.2d 816, 818 (S.D.
Ohio 2001). A claimant bears the ultimate burden of establishing disability under the Social
Security Act’s definition. Key v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 109 F.3d 270, 274 (6th Cir. 1997).
III.
In her Statement of Errors, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in: (1) evaluating medical
evidence and medical source opinions; and (2) assessing the severity of her symptoms. Doc. 14.
Having carefully reviewed the administrative record and the parties’ briefs, and also having
carefully considered the ALJ’s analysis leading to the non-disability finding here at issue, the Court
finds the ALJ carefully and reasonably developed and reviewed the record; appropriately
4

considered the medical evidence at issue; properly weighed opinion evidence based upon reasons
supported by substantial evidence (including the opinions of Kwasi Nenonene, M.D. and Morris
Brown, M.D.); reasonably assessed Plaintiff’s credibility; posed appropriate hypothetical
questions to the VE; accurately determined Plaintiff’s RFC; and appropriately concluded, at Step
Five (and in reliance on the VE’s sworn testimony), that Plaintiff can perform a significant number
of jobs in the national economy.
Accordingly, the Court AFFIRMS the ALJ’s non-disability finding as supported by
substantial evidence, and TERMINATES this case on the Court’s docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date:

April 5, 2019

s/ Michael J. Newman
Michael J. Newman
United States Magistrate Judge

5