Candy v. Social Security Administration

Filing 21

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
JAMES M. CANDY,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social
Security Administration,
Defendant.

Case No. CIV-15-494-KEW

OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff James M. Candy (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.
discussed

below,

it

is

the

finding

of

this

For the reasons
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 January 16, 1968 and was 46 years old at
the time of the ALJ’s decision.
through the ninth grade.
conditioner repair.

Claimant completed his education

He also received training in vehicle air

Claimant has no past relevant work.

Claimant

alleges an inability to work beginning August 5, 2008 due to
limitations resulting from diabetic neuropathy, gum disease, and
eye problems.

3

Procedural History
On June 29, 2010, Claimant protectively filed for supplemental
security income pursuant to Title XVI (42 U.S.C. § 1381, et seq.)
of the Social Security Act.
initially

and

upon

hearing,

the

Administrative

Claimant’s application was denied

reconsideration.
Law

After

Judge

unfavorable decision on July 13, 2012.

an

administrative

(“ALJ”)

entered

an

On September 14, 2013, the

Appeals Council reversed the ALJ’s decision and remanded the case
for further proceedings.
On remand, ALJ Lantz McClain conducted a second administrative
hearing by video on January 3, 2014 with Claimant appearing in
Muskogee, Oklahoma and the ALJ presiding from Tulsa, Oklahoma.
unfavorable decision was again entered on March 21, 2014.

An
The

Appeals Council denied review of the ALJ’s decision on October 28,
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, he did not meet a listing and retained the residual
functional

capacity

(“RFC”)

to

limitations.

4

perform

sedentary

work

with

Errors Alleged for Review
Claimant asserts the ALJ committed error in (1) ignoring
probative medical evidence related to Claimant’s hand and wrist
impairments; and (2) reaching an erroneous RFC which was not based
on substantial evidence.
Evaluation of the Medical Evidence
In his decision, the ALJ found Claimant suffered from the
severe

impairments

of

diabetes

mellitus

with

neuropathy,

hypertension, obesity, and bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome.
15).

(Tr.

The ALJ determined Claimant retained the RFC to perform

sedentary work.

In so doing, the ALJ found that Claimant could

lift/carry 10 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently, stand
or walk for six hours for at least two hours, and sit at least six
hours in an eight hour workday.

However, Claimant must avoid

hazards such as heights and open machinery and could no more than
frequently use his hands for such repetitive tasks as keyboarding.
(Tr. 16).
After consulting with a vocational expert, the ALJ concluded
that Claimant could perform the representative jobs of circuit
board assembler, order clerk, and machine operator, all of which
the ALJ determined existed in sufficient numbers in both the
regional and national economies.

(Tr. 20).

As a result, the ALJ

determined Claimant was not under a disability since June 29, 2010,

5

the date the application was filed.

Id.

Claimant contends the ALJ selectively discussed evidence in
the record which only supported a finding of non-disability while
ignoring other evidence.

On December 8, 2010, Dr. Harold Goldman

noted that Claimant had symptoms involving numbness of the fourth
and

fifth

fingers

in

both

hands.

Nerve

conduction

studies

disclosed the presence of a sensory ulna neuropathy involving both
ulna nerves at the wrist which would indicate involvement of the
canal der guilonne with entrapment of both ulna nerves.

Dr.

Goldman concluded that this must be related to Claimant’s diabetes
and previous occupation as a mechanic.

(Tr. 451).

The ALJ only

discussed electromyography and nerve conduction study which he
found supported the credibility of Claimant’s statements that he
was unable to hold a glass or squeeze a bottle hard enough to
squeeze out its contents.
were not discussed.

The remainder of Dr. Goldman’s findings

(Tr. 18).

On December 17, 2012, Dr. Douglas Nolan also found Claimant
had markedly decreased gross sensory function.

(Tr. 665).

Dr.

Nolan also noted Claimant had swelling in his left wrist involving
a

ganglion

cyst.

(Tr.

659).

Claimant

also

had

decreased

supination in his right wrist and decreased flexion and extension
range of motion in his left wrist.

Dr. Nolan noted uncontrolled

diabetic neuropathy in Claimant’s hands. (Tr. 660, 663, 665, 672).

6

The ALJ is not required to discuss every piece of evidence.
But it is clear that, “in addition to discussing the evidence
supporting

his

decision,

the

ALJ

also

must

discuss

the

uncontroverted evidence he chooses not to rely upon, as well as
significantly probative evidence he rejects.”

Clifton v. Chater,

79 F.3d 1007, 1009-1010 (10th Cir. 1996)(citations omitted).
ALJ

failed

to

consider

probative

evidence

of

The

significant

limitations in his ability to use his hands beyond the limitations
set forth in the RFC of only restricting repetitive use.

On

remand, the ALJ shall consider the totality of the evidence
concerning

Claimant’s

hand

and

wrist

impairments

and

the

limitations upon his ability to engage in basic work activity that
they impose.
RFC Determination
Claimant also contends the ALJ failed to include adequate
restrictions in the RFC for his wrist and hand impairments.
medical

record

clearly

indicates

Claimant’s

neuropathy

The
cause

problems beyond that set forth in the ALJ’s RFC restrictions,
including dropping things with his hands due to the neuropathy.
(Tr. 542).

The ALJ’s findings were primarily associated with

Claimant’s carpal tunnel syndrome rather than the effects of his
diabetic neuropathy upon his ability to manipulate objects.
“[R]esidual functional capacity consists of those activities

7

that a claimant can still perform on a regular and continuing basis
despite his or her physical limitations.”

White v. Barnhart, 287

F.3d 903, 906 n. 2 (10th Cir. 2001).

A residual functional

capacity assessment “must include a narrative discussion describing
how the evidence supports each conclusion, citing specific medical
facts ... and nonmedical evidence.” Soc. Sec. R. 96–8p.

The ALJ

must also discuss the individual's ability to perform sustained
work activities in an ordinary work setting on a “regular and
continuing basis” and describe the maximum amount of work related
activity the individual can perform based on evidence contained in
the case record. Id.

The ALJ must “explain how any material

inconsistencies or ambiguities in the evidence in the case record
were considered and resolved.”

Id.

In regard to Claimant’s hand and wrist impairments, the ALJ
failed to adequately consider the evidence surrounding the effects
of Claimant’s diabetic neuropathy.

On remand, he shall consider

the medical evidence on this impairment and the effect it has upon
Claimant’s ability to engage in sedentary work.
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

8

REVERSED and the matter REMANDED for further proceedings consistent
with this Opinion and Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of March, 2017.

______________________________
KIMBERLY E. WEST
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9