Waterdown v. Social Security Administration
Filing
20
OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kimberly E. West reversing and remanding the decision of the ALJ.(sjr, Chambers)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
SHANA L. WATERDOWN,
Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social
Security Administration,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-15-424-KEW
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff
Shana
L.
Waterdown
(the
“Claimant”)
requests
judicial review of the decision of the Commissioner of the Social
Security Administration (the “Commissioner”) denying Claimant’s
application for disability benefits under the Social Security Act.
Claimant appeals the decision of the Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”) and asserts that the Commissioner erred because the ALJ
incorrectly determined that Claimant was not disabled.
For the
reasons discussed below, it is the finding of this Court that the
Commissioner’s decision should be and is REVERSED and the case is
REMANDED for further proceedings.
Social Security Law and Standard of Review
Disability under the Social Security Act is defined as the
“inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason
of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment. . .”
42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A).
A claimant is disabled under the Social
Security
Act
“only
if
his
physical
or
mental
impairment
or
impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to do
his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and
work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful
work which exists in the national economy. . .”
§423(d)(2)(A).
42 U.S.C.
Social Security regulations implement a five-step
sequential process to evaluate a disability claim.
See, 20 C.F.R.
§§ 404.1520, 416.920.1
Judicial review of the Commissioner’s determination is limited
in scope by 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
two inquiries:
substantial
This Court’s review is limited to
first, whether the decision was supported by
evidence;
and,
second,
1
whether
the
correct
legal
Step one requires the claimant to establish that he is not
engaged in substantial gainful activity, as defined by 20 C.F.R. §§
404.1510, 416.910. Step two requires that the claimant establish that
he has a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments that
significantly limit his ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R.
§§ 404.1521, 416.921. If the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful
activity (step one) or if the claimant’s impairment is not medically
severe (step two), disability benefits are denied. At step three, the
claimant’s impairment is compared with certain impairments listed in 20
C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1. A claimant suffering from a listed
impairment or impairments “medically equivalent” to a listed impairment
is determined to be disabled without further inquiry.
If not, the
evaluation proceeds to step four, where claimant must establish that he
does not retain the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform his
past relevant work.
If the claimant’s step four burden is met, the
burden shifts to the Commissioner to establish at step five that work
exists in significant numbers in the national economy which the claimant
– taking into account his age, education, work experience, and RFC – can
perform. Disability benefits are denied if the Commissioner shows that
the impairment which precluded the performance of past relevant work does
not preclude alternative work. See generally, Williams v. Bowen, 844
F.2d 748, 750-51 (10th Cir. 1988).
2
standards were applied.
(10th
Cir.
Hawkins v. Chater, 113 F.3d 1162, 1164
1997)(citation
omitted).
The
term
“substantial
evidence” has been interpreted by the United States Supreme Court
to require “more than a mere scintilla.
It means such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support
a conclusion.”
Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)
(quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229
(1938)).
The court may not re-weigh the evidence nor substitute
its discretion for that of the agency.
Casias v. Secretary of
Health
800
&
Human
Servs.,
933
F.2d
799,
(10th
Cir.
1991).
Nevertheless, the court must review the record as a whole, and the
“substantiality of the evidence must take into account whatever in
the record fairly detracts from its weight.”
Universal Camera
Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 488 (1951); see also, Casias, 933 F.2d
at 800-01.
Claimant’s Background
Claimant was born on June 30, 1975 and was 38 years old at the
time of the ALJ’s decision.
Claimant obtained her GED.
Claimant
has worked in the past as a certified nurse’s aide and waitress.
Claimant alleges an inability to work beginning September 2, 2010
due to limitations resulting from back pain, bipolar disorder, and
depression.
3
Procedural History
On
September
19,
2012,
Claimant
protectively
filed
for
disability insurance benefits under Title II (42 U.S.C. § 401, et
seq.) and for supplemental security income pursuant to Title XVI (42
U.S.C. § 1381, et seq.) of the Social Security Act.
On April 1,
2014, an administrative hearing was held before Administrative Law
Judge (“ALJ”) Edmund C. Werre in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
an unfavorable decision on May 13, 2014.
The ALJ issued
The Appeals Council
denied review of the ALJ’s decision on September 3, 2015.
As a
result, the decision of the ALJ represents the Commissioner’s final
decision for purposes of further appeal.
20 C.F.R. §§ 404.981,
416.1481.
Decision of the Administrative Law Judge
The ALJ made his decision at step five of the sequential
evaluation. He determined that while Claimant suffered from severe
impairments, she did not meet a listing and retained the residual
functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform light work with limitations.
Errors Alleged for Review
Claimant asserts the ALJ committed error in (1) failing to
find Claimant meets or equals a listing; (2) failing to properly
evaluate the medical source evidence; and (3) failed to perform a
proper credibility determination.
Consideration of the Listing
4
In his decision, the ALJ found Claimant suffered from the
severe impairments of degenerative disc disease with left lower
extremity radiculopathy, status post left wrist operation, bipolar
disorder with psychological features, and mood disorder. (Tr. 20).
The ALJ determined Claimant retained the RFC to perform light work.
(Tr.
23).
In
so
doing,
he
found
Claimant
was
limited
to
lifting/carrying 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently;
sitting for six hours and standing or walking for six hours in an
eight hour workday; no climbing ladders, ropes, or scaffolds, and
no more than occasional stooping, kneeling, crouching, crawling, or
twisting.
remember,
The ALJ determined Claimant was able to understand,
and
carry
out
simple
instructions
consistent
with
unskilled work that was repetitive and routine in nature and not
fast paced as an assembler-type position and able to relate and
interact with co-workers and supervisors on a work-related basis
only with no or minimal interaction with the general public.
The
ALJ found Claimant’s medications would not preclude her from
remaining reasonably alert to perform required functions presented
in a work setting.
(Tr. 23).
After consulting with a vocational expert, the ALJ concluded
that Claimant could perform the representative jobs of mail room
clerk, laundry sorter, clerical mailer, and stuffer, all of which
the ALJ determined existed in sufficient numbers in both the
5
regional and national economies.
(Tr. 27).
As a result, the ALJ
determined Claimant was not under a disability from September 2,
2010 through the date of the decision.
Id.
Claimant contends the ALJ should have determined that she met
or equaled Listing 1.04 regarding disorders of the spine.
three,
Claimant
bears
the
burden
of
demonstrating
At step
that
her
condition meets or equals all of the specified criteria of the
particular listing.
Claimant
Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 530 (1990).
specifically
asserts
she
meets
the
requirements
for
Listing 1.04, which provides in pertinent part:
Disorders of the spine (e.g., herniated nucleus pulposus,
spinal arachnoiditis, spinal stenosis, osteoarthritis,
degenerative disc disease, facet arthritis, vertebra
fracture), resulting in compromise of a nerve root
(including cauda equina) or the spinal cord. With:
A. Evidence of nerve root compression characterized by
neuro-anatomic distribution of pain, limitation of motion
of the spine, motor loss (atrophy with associated muscle
weakness or muscle weakness) accompanied by sensory or
reflex loss and, if there is involvement of the lower
back, positive straight-leg raising test (sitting and
supine)
*
*
*
The ALJ found Claimant failed to meet Listing 1.04 because (1)
an MRI of Claimant’s lumbar spine revealed she needed surgery for
a left posterior 4 mm protrusion at L5-S1 disc with an annular
fissure abutting the left S1 nerve root and left posterior L4-L5
6
disc
bulge
but
could
not
have
surgery
because
her
worker’s
compensation case was concluded; (2) Dr. Thomas Craven limited
Claimant to lifting/carrying less than ten pounds and alternating
between sitting and standing; (3) a physician at Tulsa Bone & Joint
limited Claimant to lifting ten pounds, repetitive lifting of five
pounds, push-pull ten pounds and no excessive bending or twisting;
and (4) Dr. Richard Thomas found Claimant had a stable exam
standing with normal station and ambulating with a normal gait and
recommending lifting no more then 25 pounds and push-pull to 25
pounds. Based on this recitation, the ALJ found Claimant could not
meet Listing 1.04.
In
her
(Tr. 21).
briefing,
Claimant
indicates
she
had
nerve
root
compression, characterized by neuro-anatomic distribution of pain
(Tr. 362-63, 394), limitation of motion (Tr. 89, 02, 133, 364-65,
368, 376, 390, 395, 430, 431), motor loss (Tr. 390, 395, 434),
reflex loss (Tr. 395), and positive straight leg raising, both in
the sitting and supine positions (Tr. 368).
Defendant contends since her injury occurred in September of
2010 and Dr. Thomas released her in August of 2011, she cannot
demonstrate that her condition existed or was expected to exist for
a period of 12 months. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1509.
indicates
that
Claimant’s
condition
7
required
The evidence
surgery
and
the
surgery was never performed. Dr. Thomas’ findings were relevant to
a worker’s compensation claim and Claimant’s stated interest in
being released and apparently did not involve a review of an MRI or
other testing which would have indicated the status of Claimant’s
spinal condition.
However, the fact remains that he released her
under a finding of maximum medical improvement with a higher
lifting
restriction
neurogenic findings.
and
after
a
stable
examination
with
no
The burden lies with Claimant to demonstrate
the duration of the condition and she failed in that burden.
Evaluation of the Opinion Evidence
Claimant argues the ALJ should have weighed the opinion of his
treating physician, Dr. Thomas Craven.
Dr. Craven, again in
association with Claimant’s worker’s compensation case, found she
should not lift/carry over ten pounds with an option to alternate
between sitting and standing.
(Tr. 378).
The form indicates the
restrictions were temporary in nature and that Claimant could
return to work on February 15, 2011.
Claimant for surgery.
Id.
Dr. Craven also referred
The ALJ referenced the opinion under
the listing discussion but did not weigh it in formulating the RFC.
(Tr. 21, 23).
Defendant contends the ALJ implicitly rejected the opinion
when he also cited to Dr. Thomas’ contradictory findings of a
8
lifting restriction of 25 pounds.
The problem with this analysis
is that the sit/stand option is not accounted for in Dr. Thomas’
opinion and the ALJ’s decision is devoid of the reasoning necessary
to reject the findings of a treating physician. On remand, the ALJ
shall weigh and evaluate the opinion of the treating physician,
setting forth the specific bases for its consideration and the
ultimate weight he provides to the opinion.
Watkins v. Barnhart,
350 F.3d 1297, 1300 (10th Cir. 2003).
Claimant also challenges the ALJ’s failure to consider an RFC
report by a physician whose signature is illegible.
The report
indicates Claimant would have numerous problems in the workplace
due to her mental condition.
address this opinion.
this opinion.
(Tr. 257-58).
The ALJ did not
It was error not to reference and consider
On remand, the ALJ shall attempt to ascertain the
source of the statement and weigh and consider its findings, to the
extent they are verifiable.
Claimant also contends the vocational expert identified jobs
which required production rate pace after the ALJ found Claimant
should be restricted to jobs not requiring quotas. Dictionary of
Occupational Titles (“DOT”), #209.687-026, 361.687-014. She also
contends the vocational expert identified the job of mail clerk
which required a reasoning level of 3.
9
DOT #209.687-026.
The ALJ
should evaluate this testimony after determining whether further
restrictions in the RFC for a sit/stand option should have been
included in the hypothetical questioning.
Credibility Determination
Claimant’s
testimony
regarding
her
level
of
pain
was
questioned by the ALJ, citing the fact that the type of treatment
she received was not consistent with the treatment one would
receive who suffered from the pain she described.
(Tr. 25).
The
fact
treatment
for
remains
that
surgery
was
the
recommended
Claimant’s condition but did not go through with the surgery
because she was afraid she would not be able to take care of her
son.
Id.
This stated basis for rejecting Claimant’s credibility
is suspect.
Since the ALJ’s decision in this matter, the Social Security
Administration has revised its rulings on evaluating statements
related to the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of
symptoms in disability claims - what heretofore has been known as
“credibility” assessments.
Soc. Sec. R. 16-3p, 2106 WL 1119029
(March 16, 2016), superceding Soc. Sec. R. 96-7p, 1996 WL 374186
(July 2, 1996). Given the fact this case is being remanded on other
grounds, the ALJ shall apply the new guidelines under Soc. Sec. R.
16-3p in evaluating Claimant’s testimony regarding “subjective
10
symptoms”.
Conclusion
The
decision
of
the
Commissioner
is
not
supported
by
substantial evidence and the correct legal standards were not
applied.
Therefore,
this
Court
finds
the
ruling
of
the
Commissioner of Social Security Administration should be and is
REVERSED and the matter REMANDED for further proceedings consistent
with this Opinion and Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 31st day of March, 2017.
______________________________
KIMBERLY E. WEST
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
11
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?