Pruznick v. Social Security Administration

Filing 25

OPINION AND ORDER by Judge John E Dowdell ; dismissing/terminating case (terminates case) ; accepting 22 Report and Recommendation (Re: 2 Social Security Complaint ) (SAS, Chambers)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CANDICE PRUZNICK,
Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,1
Acting Commissioner of the Social
Security Administration,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 15-CV-575-JED-FHM

OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is the Report & Recommendation (R&R) (Doc. 22) of United States
Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy on review of a decision of the Commissioner of the Social
Security Administration (Commissioner) denying the plaintiff, Candice Pruznick, disability
benefits. Judge McCarthy recommends that the Court affirm the Commissioner’s decision finding
plaintiff not disabled. Ms. Pruznick filed Objections to the R&R, and she requests that the Court
“reverse and/or remand.” (Doc. 23). The Court has reviewed the record (Doc. 11) and the
plaintiff’s Objections, de novo.
I.

Background
Following a hearing before the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), the ALJ rendered his

decision dated February 27, 2014. (Doc. 11 at 33-44). The ALJ found that Mr. Pruznick was
disabled from November 11, 2011 through the date of decision and that she met the requirements
for insured status. The ALJ determined that Ms. Pruznick had severe impairments of degenerative
disc disease of the lumbar spine and bilateral ankle pain. The ALJ noted that Ms. Pruznick’s initial

Nancy A. Berryhill is now the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d), the Court Clerk is directed to substitute Nancy A. Berryhill as
the defendant in this matter in place of former Commissioner Carolyn W. Colvin.
1

application only asserted physical impairments and no mental impairments, and he found that her
“alleged depression and anxiety are not severe” because the medical evidence did not “confirm a
mental impairment.” (Id. at 40).
The ALJ noted that Ms. Pruznick was 30 years of age at the alleged onset date of disability
(November 11, 2011), she has a ninth grade education with additional training as a medical
assistant, and she has past relevant work inclusive of hotel clerk, retail sales, storage facility
manger, and home health aide. The ALJ further assessed Ms. Pruznick’s residual functional
capacity (RFC) as follows:
With respect to lifting, carrying, pushing, and pulling, she is limited to light and
sedentary exertion work. With respect to walking or standing, she is limited to 2
hours (combined total) of an 8-hour workday, with regular work breaks. She is able
to sit for 6 hours (combined total) of an 8-hour workday, with regular work breaks.
She is able to climb ramps or stairs only occasionally, is able to bend, stoop, kneel,
crouch, and crawl not more than occasionally and is unable to climb ropes, ladders,
and scaffolds, or work in environments where she would have be [sic] exposed to
unprotected heights and dangerous moving machinery parts. She is unable to
perform tasks requiring overhead reaching more than occasionally and is further
unable to perform tasks requiring the use of foot pedals more than occasionally.
(Doc. 11 at 40-41). Upon considering Ms. Pruznick’s age, education, work experience, and RFC,
the ALJ found that there are jobs in significant numbers in the national economy that she can
perform. (Id. at 46-47). The ALJ then relied upon the vocational expert’s testimony that such jobs
include semi-conductor bonder, food and beverage order clerk, and circuit board assembly. (Id. at
47-48). Thus the ALJ concluded that Ms. Pruznick was not under a disability. (Id. at 48). The
Appeals Council subsequently denied Ms. Pruznick’s request for review (id. at 5-8), and this
appeal followed.
II.

Standard of Review
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), “[t]he district judge must determine de novo any part

of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may
2

accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the
matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”
The Court’s task of reviewing the Commissioner’s decision is limited to a determination
of “whether the factual findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record and whether
the correct legal standards were applied.” Doyal v. Barnhart, 331 F.3d 758, 760 (10th Cir. 2003).
Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion.” Id. “It is ‘more than a scintilla, but less than a preponderance.’” Newbold
v. Colvin, 718 F.3d 1257, 1262 (10th Cir. 2013) (quoting Lax v. Astrue, 489 F.3d 1080, 1084 (10th
Cir. 2007). The Court will “neither reweigh the evidence nor substitute [its] judgment for that of
the agency.” White v. Barnhart, 287 F.3d 903, 905 (10th Cir. 2001) (quoting Castas v. Sec’y of
Health & Human Servs., 933 F.2d 799, 800 (10th Cir. 1991)).
III.

Discussion of the Objections
A.

Consideration of Mental Impairments

As noted, the ALJ found that the medical record did not support a finding of severe
depression and anxiety. In her Objections, plaintiff argues that Judge McCarthy improperly
“attempted to shift the ALJ’s duty to develop the record back to plaintiff” at step five and erred in
finding the ALJ’s failure to discuss the Psychiatric Review Technique (PRT) to be harmless. (Doc.
23 at 2). The Court disagrees. Judge McCarthy accurately noted that the ALJ considered plaintiff’s
allegations of depression and anxiety and found any alleged anxiety and depression were not
severe. (See Doc. 11 at 40, 42). Judge McCarthy also correctly referenced the few notes in the
record in 2013 in which plaintiff was prescribed Paxil for anxiety and was noted to be doing well
on Paxil. The medical records note that, shortly after she started taking Paxil, she was handling
situations better and not feeling as upset. (Id. at 392).

3

Upon review of the entire record, the Court also agrees with Judge McCarthy’s
determination that the medical records do not suggest any work-related mental functional
limitations. In fact, Ms. Pruznick testified only that she had “some depression,” she denied crying
spells or suicidal thoughts, and she testified that the main barrier keeping her from working was
her back. (Id. at 83-84). The record also supports Judge McCarthy’s alternative determination
that, even had the ALJ erred in failing to perform a PRT analysis, such error was harmless as the
record does not support any mental limitations beyond those contained in the hypothetical
limitations provided to the vocational expert. (Doc. 22 at 4; see Doc. 11 at 83-86).
B.

Credibility

Ms. Pruznick also alleges that the ALJ did not properly evaluate her credibility because
there are records supporting her assertions of pain. (Doc. 23 at 3). The ALJ explained the reasons
he found that certain of Ms. Pruznick’s statements concerning the “intensity, persistence and
limiting effects of [her] symptoms are not entirely credible . . . and do not appear entirely true.”
(Doc. 11 at 40). The ALJ further explained that his credibility finding was based on inconsistencies
in Ms. Pruznick’s reports of normal daily activities and the fact that physical examination did not
suggest any prominent impairment in ability to perform full time work activities. (Id. at 41). In
addition, in his RFC determination, the ALJ did include limitations with respect to walking and
standing and postural limitations as a result of the back and ankle pain. (Id. at 40-41). The ALJ’s
credibility findings are supported by the record, and the Court accords them deference. Kepler v.
Chater, 68 F.3d 387, 391 (10th Cir. 1995); see also Newbold v. Colvin, 718 F.3d 1257, 1267 (10th
Cir. 2013) (citation omitted) (“Credibility determinations are peculiarly the province of the finder
of fact” and will not be upset where they are supported by and “closely and affirmatively linked
to” substantial evidence).

4

IV.

Conclusion
Having found no reversible error in the ALJ’s decision, upon concluding that the ALJ

applied the correct legal standards and his decision is supported by substantial record evidence,
and agreeing with Judge McCarthy’s R&R, the Court overrules Ms. Pruznick’s Objections (Doc.
23). Accordingly, the Court accepts the R&R (Doc. 22) and the recommendation that the
Commissioner’s decision finding plaintiff not disabled be affirmed.
Commissioner’s decision is affirmed.
A separate Judgment will be entered forthwith.
DATED this 6th day of March, 2017.

5

Accordingly, the