Dunnigan v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration

Filing 25

Findings & Recommendation - The Commissioner's motion to remand for further administrative proceedings 19 should be denied. The court should remand the claim for an award of benefits. Objections to the Findings and Recommendation are due by 4/7/09. If objections are filed, a party may file a response within fourteen days of the filing date of the objections. Signed 3/24/09, US Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta. (peg)

IN T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S D I S T R I C T C O U R T F O R T H E DISTRICT O F O R E G O N

J I M B. D U N N I G A N , Plaintiff, v. M I C H A E L J. A S T R U E , C o m m i s s i o n e r o f S o c i a l Security, Defendant. A C O S T A , M a g i s t r a t e Judge:

CY.07-1645-AC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

C l a i m a n t J i m B. D u n n i g a n ( " C l a i m a n t " ) seeks j u d i c i a l r e v i e w o f a final decision o f the C o m m i s s i o n e r o f S o c i a l S e c u r i t y ( , ' C o m m i s s i o n e r " ) d e n y i n g h i s a p p l i c a t i o n f o r D i s a b i l i t y Insurance B e n e f i t s ("DID") u n d e r Title I I o f the S o c i a l Security A c t ( " S S A " ) . See 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-433 (2008). This court has j u r i s d i c t i o n to r e v i e w the C o m m i s s i o n e r ' s d e c i s i o n p u r s u a n t to 4 2 U.S.C.

§ 405(g). F o l l o w i n g a c a r e f u l r e v i e w o f t h e record, t h e c o u r t c o n c l u d e s t h a t t h e C o m m i s s i o n e r erred

FINDINGS & R E C O M M E N D A T I O N

I

{KPR}

in finding C l a i m a n t not disabled and that the claim should b e remanded for a n award o f benefits.

Procedural History
C l a i m a n t p r o t e c t i v e l y f i l e d for D I B o n M a r c h 2 2 , 2 0 0 5 , a l l e g i n g a d i s a b i l i t y o n s e t d a t e o f April 1, 2003. T h e claim w a s denied initially and o n reconsideration. O n M a y 10, 2007, a hearing w a s h e l d b e f o r e a n A d m i n i s t r a t i v e L a w J u d g e ( " A L J " ) , w h o i s s u e d a d e c i s i o n o n J u n e 22, 2 0 0 7 , finding Claimant n o t disabled. Claimant requested review o f this decision o n S e p t e m b e r 10, 2007. T h e A p p e a l s C o u n c i l d e n i e d this r e q u e s t m a k i n g t h e A U ' s d e c i s i o n t h e C o m m i s s i o n e r ' s final decision. C l a i m a n t filed for review o f the final decision i n this court o n N o v e m b e r 1, 2007. The Commissioner m o v e d to r e m a n d the case for further administrative proceedings o n October 3 , 2 0 0 8 .

Standard o fR e v i e w
T h i s c o u r t m u s t a f f i r m t h e C o m m i s s i o n e r ' s d e c i s i o n i f i t i s b a s e d o n p r o p e r legal s t a n d a r d s a n d t h e f i n d i n g s a r e s u p p o r t e d b y s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d as a w h o l e . 4 2 U . S . C . § 4 0 5 ( g ) ;

s e e also A n d r e w s v. Slialala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 1995). "Substantial evidence is such
relevant evidence as a reasonable m i n d m i g h t accept as adequate to s u p p o r t a conclusion." Tylitzki

v. Slialala, 999 F . 2 d 1411, 1413 (9th Cir. 1993). T h e cOUli m u s t w e i g h " b o t h t h e evidence that
supports and detracts from the [Commissioner's] conclusion." Martinez v. Heckler, 807 F . 2 d 771, 772 (9th Cir. 1986). T h e C o m m i s s i o n e r ' s decision must b e u p h e l d i f i t is a rational interpretation o f t h e evidence, e v e n i f t h e r e are other possible rational interpretations. Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F . 2 d 747, 750 (9th Cir. 1989); Andrews, 53 F . 3 d at 1039-1040. T h e reviewing cOUli m a y n o t substitute its j u d g m e n t for that o f the Commissioner. Robbins v. Social Sed. Admin., 4 6 6 F . 3 d 880, 8 8 2 ( 9 t h Cir. 2 0 0 6 ) . T h e A L J is responsible for determining credibility, resolving conflicts i n medical testimony,

FINDINGS & R E C O M M E N D A T I O N

2

{KPR}

and resolving ambiguities. Andrews, 53 F.3d at 1039. In determining a claimant's residual functional capacity ("RFC"), an ALJ must consider all relevant evidence i n the record, including,
inter alia, medical records, lay evidence, and " t h e effects o f symptoms, including pain, that are

reasonably attributed to a medically determinable impaitment." Robbins, 466 F.3d at 883, citing S S R 96-8p, 1996 W L 3 7 4 1 8 4 , at *5; 2 0 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 416.945(a)(3); Smolen v. Chatel', 80 F.3d 1273, 1281 (9th Cir.l996).
SlIlIIlII{//)' o f the A L l ' s Findings

The ALJ engaged in the five-step "sequential evaluation" process when he evaluated Claimant's disability, as required. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920; s e e also Bowen v. Ylickert, 482 U.S. 137, 140 (1987).

1

Steps O n e and T w o A t Step One, the ALJ concluded that Claimant had not engaged i n any substantial gainful

activity since the onset o f his alleged disability. (Tr. 11.) At Step Two, the ALJ determined that Claimant had the following severe impairments: skin disorders, a depressive disorder, an anxietyr e l a t e d disorder, s p e c i f i c a l l y P o s t T r a u m a t i c S t r e s s D i s o r d e r ( " P T S D " ) , a n d a s u b s t a n c e a d d i c t i o n disorder, specifically alcohol dependence. (Tr. 11.) H e also found that Claimant suffered from the following non-severe impainllents: knee pain and hand pain. (Tr. 26.) T h e A L I ' s specific findings as to each impairment, both severe and non-severe, are detailed below.
a. Skill disorders

In April 2004, Claimant visited the Veterans Administration ("VA " ) , at which time h e was denied compensation for his skin disorders. (Tr. 11.) A V A progress note fi'Olll August 2004 notes that he suffered from "rosacea, psoriasis, and benign skin lesions which were all managed or stable." FINDINGS & R E C O M M E N D A T I O N 3
{KPR}

(Tr. 11.) A s o f N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 5 , t h e V A r e p o r t e d t h a t C l a i m a n t ' s r o s a c e a h a d i m p r o v e d w i t h a l c o h o l a b s t i n e n c e , b u t t h a t h e h a d p s o r i a s i s i n v a r i o u s l o c a t i o n s o n h i s b o d y . (Tr. 1 2 . )

b.

Depressive disorder

I n F e b r u m y 2 0 0 7 , t h e V A d i a g n o s e d C l a i m a n t w i t h " M a j o r D e p r e s s i o n ( s e c o n d m y to P T S D a n d r e l a t e d t o c a r i n g f o r g r a n d c h i 1 d r e n ) [ . ] " (Tr. 12.) c.

PTSD

C l a i m a n t t o o k e a r l y r e t i r e m e n t from his j o b i n A p r i l 2 0 0 3 b e c a u s e " h e w a s h a v i n g d i f f i c u l t y b e i n g a r o u n d p e o p l e a n d [ h a v i n g ] a n x i e t y a t t a c k s . " (Tr. 1 1 . ) T h e V A d e t e r m i n e d t h a t C l a i m a n t w a s e n t i t l e d to a " 5 0 % s e r v i c e - r e l a t e d c o m p e n s a t i o n f o r [ P T S D ] , " w h i c h w a s l a t e r i n c r e a s e d t o s e v e n t y p e r c e n t i n M a y 2 0 0 7 . (Tr. 1 1 . ) I n 2 0 0 5 , C l a i m a n t r e q u e s t e d h e l p f r o m t h e V A t o m a n a g e h i s P T S D a n d anger. I n F e b r u m y 2 0 0 5 , D r . G a r y M o n k a r s h " d i a g n o s e d c h r o n i c a n d m o d e r a t e P T S D . . . w i t h a G A P o f 5 6 . " (Tr. 1 1 . ) D r . D u a n e K o l i l i s d i a g n o s e d C l a i m a n t w i t h P T S D i n J u l y 2 0 0 5 a n d g a v e h i m a G l o b a l A s s e s s m e n t o f F u n c t i o n i n g ("GAP") s c o r e o f 62. D r . P e t e r L e B r a y , a D i s a b i l i t y Determination Services physician, diagnosed Claimant with " a 12.06 Anxiety-Related Disorder[.]" (Tr. 1 2 . ) C l a i m a n t ' s G A F w a s r a t e d a t 7 0 i n D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 5 , b u t fell t o 4 5 i n F e b r u m y 2 0 0 7 .

d.

Alcohol dependence

I n F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 5 , C l a i m a n t "repOited d r i n k i n g 10 o r m o r e d r i n k s p e r d a y , " a n d D r . M o n k a r s h d i a g n o s e d C l a i m a n t w i t h e p i s o d i c a l c o h o l a b u s e . (Tr. 1 1 . ) I n J u l y 2 0 0 5 , D r . K o l i l i s d i a g u o s e d C l a i m a n t w i t h " A l c o h o l D e p e n d e n c e [and] A l c o h o l - R e l a t e d D i s o r d e r ( N O S ) , " a n d D r . L e B r a y diagnosed Claimant w i t h " 1 2 . 0 9 Substance A d d i c t i o n D i s o r d e r w i t h B criteria o f mild, moderate, a n d ' n o n e ' a n d n o e v i d e n c e o f C c r i t e r i a . " (Tr. 1 1 - 1 2 . ) F i n a l l y , i n F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 7 t h e V A d e t e l 1 u i n e d t h a t C l a i m a n t s u f f e r e d f r o m " A l c o h o l A b u s e ( i n r e m i s s i o n ) [ . ] " (Tr. 1 2 . )

FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION

4

{KPR}

e.

Hand pain

Claimant reported hand pain i n April 2005, but "[p ]rogress notes repOli[ ed] minimal tenderness and a small amount o f flexion loss." (Tr. 12.) Claimant again reported hand pain in July 2006, but no range o f motion or other restrictions were noted.

f

Knee p a i n

Claimant reported knee pain in April 2005, but "[p ]rogress notes report[ ed] minimal tendemess and a small amount o f flexion loss." (Tr. 12.) Claimant again reported knee pain i n August 2006 "after walking long distances and then bending his knee w h e n sitting." (Tr. 12.) However, this did not stop Claimant from continuing to walk and engaging i n other activities in his house and yard. Claimant was given a knee brace. Claimant reported increased activity i n both October and November 2006, including biking, lifting weights, and attending T ' a i Chi classes. II. Step Three At Step Three, the A L I concluded that "[C]laimant does not have an impairment or combination o f impainnents that meets or medically equals one o f the listed impaiIments i n 2 0 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1." (Tr. 12.) In particular, the ALJ considered the listings for Affective Disorders, 12.04, and Anxiety-Related Disorders, 12.06. 20 C.F.R. PI. 404, Subpt. P , App.

1. The ALJ cited Dr. Robeli Davis's testimony regarding Claimant's functional limitations.
According to Dr. Davis, Claimant is moderately restricted i n activities o f daily living; markedly limited i n social functioning; moderately restricted i n maintaining concentration, persistence, and pace; and experiences no episodes o f decompensation. Dr. Davis concluded that Claimant did not satisfy the "c" criteria for either Listing 12.04 or 12.06, although the "c" criteria for Listing 12.04 would be met " i f [C]laimant was exposed to many people, surprises and changes, or additional FINDINGS & R E C O M M E N D A T I O N

5

{KPR}

stress." (Tr. 12.) B e c a u s e the A L J felt h e had accounted for t h o s e circumstances i n formulating C l a i m a n t ' s r e s i d u a l functional capacity ( " R F C " ) , h e c o n c l u d e d t h a t C l a i m a n t did n o t m e e t L i s t i n g 12.04. III. Claimant's RFC I n d e t e r m i n i n g C l a i m a n t ' s R F C , t h e A L J first n o t e d t h a t C l a i m a n t h a d n o e x e r t i o n a l limitations. However, d u e to n o n e x e r t i o n a l l i m i t a t i o n s , " C l a i m a n t [was] limited to simple, routine, repetitive work; to no w o r k i n g around large crowds, to no concentrated e x p o s u r e to wetness o r humidity; to n o w o r k i n g around loud/sudden/unpredictable noises; a n d to occasionally w o r k i n g with the p u b l i c o r co-workers." (Tr. 12-13.) T h e ALJ outlined a two-step p r o c e s s for e v a l u a t i n g a c l a i m a n t ' s symptoms. T h e A L J m u s t first a s s e s s w h e t h e r a n u n d e r l y i n g m e n t a l o r p h y s i c a l

i m p a i r m e n t c o u l d give rise to the c l a i m a n t ' s symptoms and, second, the e x t e n t to w h i c h the intensity, p e r s i s t e n c e , a n d l i m i t i n g e f f e c t s o f t h o s e s y m p t o m s l i m i t t h e c l a i m a n t ' s a b i l i t y t o work. I f t h e c l a i m a n t ' s representations as to the second element are n o t substantiated b y t h e objective medical r e c o r d , t h e A L J m u s t e v a l u a t e t h e c l a i m a n t ' s credibility. Here, t h e A L J c o n c l u d e d t h a t C l a i m a n t ' s s t a t e d s y m p t o m s w e r e n o t f u l l y s u p p o r t e d b y o b j e c t i v e e v i d e n c e and, a c c o r d i n g l y , t h e A L J e v a l u a t e d C l a i m a n t ' s c r e d i b i l i t y . T h e A L J f o u n d C l a i m a n t n o t fully c r e d i b l e for the following reasons. First, the A L J cited evidence that C l a i m a n t ' s d e p r e s s i o n w a s n o t as limiting as h e claimed i t to be. In O c t o b e r 2 0 0 5 , C l a i m a n t r e p o r t e d

i m p r o v e m e n t in s y m p t o m s a f t e r h i s s o n r e t u r n e d f r o m I r a q a n d a g e n e r a l i m p r o v e m e n t in h i s p h y s i c a l h e a l t h . C l a i m a n t t o l d Dr. M o n k a r s h i n F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 5 , t h a t " h e w a s n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y o c c u p a t i o n a l l y i m p a i r e d p r i o r to his r e t i r e m e n t . " (Tr. 14.) O n two occasions, i n M a y and J u l y 2005, C l a i m a n t r e p o l i e d t h a t h i s d e p r e s s i o n w a s n o t a m a j o r p r o b l e m and, i n A p r i l 2 0 0 6 , " o p i n e d a

FINDINGS & R E C O M M E N D A T I O N

6

{KPR}

possible benefit" from taking Paxil. (Tr. 14.) Second, the ALJ found Claimant not fully credible as to his alcohol use. Claimant was diagnosed w i t h alcohol dependence in M a y 2005. In July 2005, Dr. Kolilis "described [Cllaimant as guarded and vague, possibly underreporting past and CUlTent alcohol u s e . " (Tr. 14.) Dr. Kolilis also repOlied that w h e n sober, Claimant w a s capable o f increased concentration, work-related activities, socializing, adapting to changes, and following instructions. Claimant reported, in N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 5 , t h a t h e u s e d alcohol p r i m a r i l y w h e n s o c i a l i z i n g . T h i r d , t h e A U s u m m a r i z e d t h e r e c o r d e v i d e n c e that u n d e m l i n e d C l a i m a n t ' s complaints. A J u l y 2005 assessment b y Dr. LeBray characterized Claimant as "moderately limited" i n following i n s t r u c t i o n s , i n t e r a c t i n g w i t h t h e p u b l i c , d e a l i n g w i t h s u p e r v i s o r y f i g u r e s , i n t e r a c t i n g w i t h p e e r s , and setting and meeting goals. (Tr. 14-15.) Dr. LeBray characterized C l a i m a n t as " n o t significantly limited" in all other areas. (Tr. 14.) Dr. M m y A n n Westfall found no e x e r t i o n a l l i m i t a t i o n s o r l i m i t a t i o n s i n c o m m u n i c a t i o n , t h o u g h s h e n o t e d that C l a i m a n t s h o u l d a v o i d w e t n e s s a n d h u m i d i t y . V A progress notes in February 2006 revealed that Claimant w e n t to the beach, traveled to Bend, Oregon for a birthday party, and visited Idaho o n a car trip. I n Februmy 2007, t h e V A progress notes reveal that Claimant hunted and fished with friends and family and "occasionally gardened." (Tr. 15.) Although his short term m e m o r y and concentration w e r e below average and h e h a d an " i n c r e a s e d startle reaction," Claimant h a d normal, clear thought processes. (Tr. 15.) Finally, the A L J r e c o g n i z e d t h a t t h e V A ' s d i s a b i l i t y r a t i n g o f C l a i m a n t ' s P T S D i n c r e a s e d f r o m fifty t o s e v e n t y p e r c e n t i n M a y 2 0 0 7 , b u t n o t e d t h a t t h e V A u s e s d i f f e r e n t s t a n d a r d s for d e t e r m i n i n g d i s a b i l i t y . F o r all o f t h e s e r e a s o n s , t h e A U found C l a i m a n t n o t fully credible. T h e A U t h e n s u m m a r i z e d t h i r d p a r t y t e s t i m o n y g i v e n b y C l a i m a n t ' s wife, Mrs. M y m a FINDINGS & R E C O M M E N D A T I O N {KPR}

7

Dunnigan ("Mrs. Dunnigan"). Mrs. D u n n i g a n stated that C l a i m a n t w a s able to engage i n m a n y physical activities, including light housekeeping, caring for h i s grandson, c o o k i n g meals, walking, dJiving, b i k i n g , g a r d e n i n g , c a m p i n g a n d h u n t i n g . H o w e v e r , Mrs. D u n n i g a n also d e s c r i b e d

C l a i m a n t ' s m e n t a l limitations w h i c h i n c l u d e d n o t leaving the house, avoiding social situations a n d p e r s o n a l h y g e i n e , a n d e x p e r i e n c i n g a l o t o f anger, a g i t a t i o n , a n d d i s c o n n e c t i o n .

N.

Step F o u r A t Step Four, t h e A L I c o n c l u d e d t h a t b e c a u s e Claimant i s limited to u n s k i l l e d w o r k and as

to n o i s e level, h e c o u l d n o t p e r f o r m " p a s t relevant w o r k as a w a r e h o u s e worker, a forklift operator, a Stevedore I, a n d a u n i o n representative." (Tr. 15.) V. Step F i v e A t S t e p Five, t h e A L I c o n c l u d e d t h a t C l a i m a n t w a s c a p a b l e o f p e r f o r m i n g o t h e r w o r k t h a t e x i s t s i n s u b s t a n t i a l n u m b e r s i n t h e n a t i o n a l economy. T h e A L I c i t e d V o c a t i o n a l E x p e r t ( " V E " ) t e s t i m o n y t h a t a h y p o t h e t i c a l i n d i v i d u a l w i t h C l a i m a n t ' s l i m i t a t i o n s c o u l d p e r f o r m t h e j o b s o f small p r o d u c t s assembler, sOlter, and janitor. Therefore, the A L I found C l a i m a n t n o t disabled.

DisclIssion
T h e p a r t i e s a g r e e t h a t t h e A L I e n ' e d i n finding C l a i m a n t n o t d i s a b l e d . T h e p a t t i e s disagree, however, as to w h e t h e r t h e c l a i m s h o u l d b e remanded for reconsideration o r r e m a n d e d for an award o f b e n e f i t s . F o r t h e r e a s o n s t h a t follow, the c o u r t s h o u l d r e m a n d the c l a i m for a n a w a r d o f b e n e f i t s . T h e decision to r e m a n d for further p r o c e e d i n g s o r for i m m e d i a t e p a y m e n t o f benefits is w i t h i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f the court. Harman v. Apfel, 211 F . 3 d 1172, 1178 ( 9 t h Cir. 2000), cert.

denied, 531 U.S. 1038 (2000). T h e c o u r t ' s decision turns o n the utility o f further proceedings. A
r e m a n d for a n a w a r d o f b e n e f i t s i s a p p r o p r i a t e w h e n n o u s e f u l p u r p o s e w o u l d b e s e r v e d b y f m t h e r

FINDINGS & R E C O M M E N D A T I O N

8

{KPR}

administrative proceedings or when the record has been fully developed and t h e evidence is not sufficient to support the Commissioner's decision. Rodl'iguezv. Bowen, 876 F.2d 759, 763 (9th Cir. 1989). T h e Commissioner concedes that the A U erred (1) i n evaluating Dr. D a v i s ' s testimony as to whether Claimant met o r equaled a listing, (2) in evaluating the V A ' s disability rating, and (3) in m a k i n g f i n d i n g s a t S t e p F i v e . T h e C o m m i s s i o n e r does n o t c o n c e d e t h a t t h e A U e r r e d i n f i n d i n g C l a i m a n t ' s obesity and osteoarthritis non-severe. Claimant argues that i f t h e ALJ erred and Claimant meets a listing at Step Three, no additional analysis is needed to find Claimant disabled. The court agrees t h a t t h e l i s t i n g d e t e n n i n a t i o n i s d i s p o s i t i v e : i f C l a i m a n t i s f o u n d d i s a b l e d a t S t e p T h r e e , o n l y a remand for an award o f benefits is appropriate .

.L

Severity o f C l a i m a n t ' s osteoarthritis and obesity As a preliminary matter, the cOUlt concludes that the A U did n o t err i n classifying

C l a i m a n t ' s severe and non-severe impairments. The record evidence SUppOltS the A U ' s finding that C l a i m a n t ' s osteoarthritis (i.e., hand and knee pain) and obesity were non-severe. Claimant first argues that the A U did n o t discuss the osteoarthritis i n Claimant's thumbs. In palticular, Claimant cites a progress note that states, i n relevant part: "Arthritis left hand, m i l d weakness, filll AROM, no c/o acute pain w i t h us, stable." (Tr. 220.) Claimant also cites a medical report that states, in relevant part: "Intermittent pain both base o f t h u m b s . . . . Hands-no synovitis/deformities, min tenderness at the base o f the thumbs." ( T r . 3 2 2 . ) Neither citation SUppOlts Claimant's contention that hand or thumb pain presents more than a minimal limitation. T h e court has also reviewed the record evidence and found no other evidence that Claimant's hand p a i n i s severe. Claimant also argues that the fact that doctors offered h i m the use o f a cane, despite the fact FINDINGS & R E C O M M E N D A T I O N 9
{KPR}

that Claimant declined t h e offer, demonstrated that his k n e e p a i n w a s sufficiently debilitating to qualify as a severe impainuent. Claimant cites a progress note that reads, w i t h regard to h i s knee: " [ C l a i m a n t ] s t a t e s t h a t h e i s n o t y e t r e a d y for a c a n e a t t h i s p o i n t , b u t w o u l d c e r t a i n l y b e i n t e r e s t e d i n t i p s o n p o s t u r e a n d t e c h n i q u e s t h a t w o u l d e n a b l e h i m t o w a l k f m i h e r w i t h l e s s p a i n . " ( T r . 529.) Again, this evidence is insufficient to undel111ine the A L I ' s findings as to C l a i m a n t ' s severe and nons e v e r e impairments. F i n a l l y , C l a i m a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e A U failed t o a d d r e s s h i s o b e s i t y a n d i n c o r r e c t l y c l a s s i f i e d i t as a non-severe impairment. Claimant cites a progress n o t e that gives o b e s i t y as a diagnosis and s t a t e s t h a t m o d i f i e d a c t i v i t i e s , i n c r e a s e d fitness, a n d w e i g h t loss w e r e d i s c u s s e d and encouraged. (Tr. 322.) T h i s e v i d e n c e and the c o u r t ' s review o f the record evidence do n o t indicate that C l a i m a n t ' s obesity w a s sufficiently limiting to qualify as a severe impairment. Accordingly, the A L I ' s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t C l a i m a n t ' s o b e s i t y w a s n o n - s e v e r e w a s appropriate. 2. L i s t i n g 12.04 Dr. Davis testified at C l a i m a n t ' s hearing before the A U as to w h e t h e r Claimant m e t or m e d i c a l l y e q u a l e d a l i s t i n g . Dr. D a v i s t e s t i f i e d t h a t C l a i m a n t s u f f e r e d f r o m s e v e r a l i m p a i r m e n t s , o n e o f w h i c h w a s " [ P T S D ] , w h i c h w o u l d b e a c o n d i t i o n t h a t m e e t s the c r i t e r i a o n 12.06 . . . o f r e c m T e n t i n t m s i v e r e c o l l e c t i o n s o f a t r a u m a t i c e x p e r i e n c e w h i c h a r e a s o u r c e o f m a r k e d d i s t r e s s . " (Tr. 41.) H o w e v e r , l a t e r t e s t i m o n y r e v e a l s t h a t h e d i d n o t b e l i e v e C l a i m a n t m e t t h e "c" c r i t e r i a for t h a t l i s t i n g . (Tr. 4 4 . ) Dr. D a v i s a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t C l a i m a n t s u f f e r e d f r o m a l c o h o l d e p e n d e n c e , u n d e r L i s t i n g 12.09, for s o m e time, though this condition w a s "currently in full, sustained remission without relapse[,]" and h a d b e e n for the two years prior to the hearing. (Tr. 41-42.) R e g a r d i n g C l a i m a n t ' s d e p r e s s i v e d i s o r d e r a n d L i s t i n g 1 2 . 0 4 , D r . D a v i s stated: FINDINGS & R E C O M M E N D A T I O N

10

{KPR}

As to the 12.04, h e r e ' s where I think the problem is, and i t ' s under number two, and I do believe that that exists given an atmosphere where you h a v e to work around m a n y p e o p l e o r s u r p r i s e s and c h a n g e s , t h e r e i s a d d i t i o n a l s t r e s s , I t h i n k t h a t t h a t w o u l d c a u s e h i m t o decompensate. (Tr. 45.) The A L J acknowledged this testimony, b u t explained that Listing 12.04(C)(2) " w o u l d a p p l y i f c l a i m a n t w a s e x p o s e d t o m a n y people, s u r p r i s e s a n d c h a n g e s , o r a d d i t i o n a l s t r e s s . H o w e v e r , s i n c e t h o s e l i m i t a t i o n s h a v e b e e n added to c l a i m a n t ' s [ R F C ] , [ C ] l a i m a n t ' s i m p a i r m e n t w o u l d n o t satisfy t h e criteria" o f Listing 12.04(C)(2). (Tr. 12.) The Commissioner argues that, although the A L J el1'ed i n evaluating this testimony, remand proceedings are needed to clarify the testimony and determine i f C l a i m a n t ' s condition actually meets o r equals this listing. C l a i m a n t ' s response is two-fold: (1) all j o b s are susceptible to surprises, c h a n g e s , and a d d i t i o n a l s t r e s s , r e g a r d l e s s o f s k i l l l e v e l o r t h e a m o u n t o f r e s t r i c t i o n s p l a c e d o n a particular j o b and (2) the A L I ' s analysis is out o f sequence as the listing detel111ination occurs prior to t h e R F C determination. I f a claimant has m e t a listing at Step Three, his o r her disability has already been established a11d cmmot b e altered b y subsequent limitation o f t h e c l a i m a n t ' s RFC. T o m e e t o r m e d i c a l l y e q u a l t h e s u b p a r t C o f L i s t i n g 12.04, a c l a i m a n t m u s t demonstrate: M e d i c a l l y d o c u m e n t e d h i s t o r y o f a c h r o n i c a f f e c t i v e d i s o r d e r o f at l e a s t 2 y e a r s ' duration that has caused m o r e than a minimal limitation o f ability to do basic w o r k a c t i v i t i e s , w i t h s y m p t o m s o r s i g n s c u r r e n t l y a t t e n u a t e d b y m e d i c a t i o n o r psychosocial suppoti, and o n e o f the following: 1. Repeated episodes o f decompensation, each o f extended duration; o r 2. A residual disease process that has resulted i n such marginal adjustment that even a minimal increase in mental demands o r change i n the environment would b e p r e d i c t e d to c a u s e t h e i n d i v i d u a l to d e c o m p e n s a t e ; o r 3. CUl1'ent history o f I o r more years' inability to function outside a highly supportive l i v i n g a r r a n g e m e n t , w i t h an i n d i c a t i o n o f c o n t i n u e d n e e d f o r s u c h an a r r a n g e m e n t .

FINDINGS & R E C O M M E N D A T I O N

11

{KPR}

20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1. Dr. Davis specificallyrefelTed to subpart (C)(2) and indicated that Claimant was susceptible to decompensating under certain circumstances. In light o f this listing and Dr. D a v i s ' s testimony, the court reviewed the evidentiary record. A careful review o f the evidentimy record reveals the contours o f Claimant's mental health challenges resulting from depression, PTSD, and alcohol dependence i n remission. Claimant is a veteran o f t h e Vietnam W a r who served from November 1 6 , 1 9 6 6 , to November 15, 1968. ( T r . 9 8 . ) Claimant filed a disability claim with the VA o n March 2 3 , 2 0 0 4 . Around that same time, Claimant sought help fi'om the VA for various problems, including PTSD and alcohol abuse. On Febmary 3, 2005, C l a i m a n t r e p o r t e d a h i s t o r y o f a l c o h o l abuse a n d a l c o h o l u s e o f t e n o r m o r e d r i n k s i n o n e d a y o n at least a weekly basis. (Tr. 208, 212.) Claimant also reported that h e had not b e e n "depressed o r sad during most o f the last year[.]" (Tr. 212.) O n March 2, 2005, the V A rated Claimant's PTSD disability at fifty percent (50%). This rating "is assigned for occupational and socialimpainnentwithreduced reliability and productivity," as a result o f symptoms that include "impaired judgment," and "difficulty i n establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships." (Tr. 99.) The V A characterized Claimant's PTSD as "chronic and moderate," and assigned Claimant a GAF o f 56. (Tr. 100.) Specifically, Claimant: suffer[ s] from daily moderate symptoms o f P T S D such as: [marital] problems, s e l f isolation, anger towards others, [Claimant was] exposed to a number o f life threatening, traumatic events and . . . persistently re-experience[ s] these events, to which [he] respond[s] with feelings o f helplessness andholTor. [Claimant] avoid[s] stimuli associated with the events and has a numbing o f general responsiveness. [Claimant] suffer[s] from persistent symptoms o f increased arousal. (Tr. 100, quoting Dr. Monkarsh, Janumy 5, 2005 at Tr. 231.) At this time, Claimant was not

FINDINGS & R E C O M M E N D A T I O N

12

{KPR}

diagnosed with a n y additional m e n t a l disorders. O n J u l y 12, 2 0 0 5 , Dr. Kolilis performed a psychodiagnostic evaluation o n Claimant. Dr. K o l i l i s suggested t h a t C l a i m a n t m i g h t b e an unreliable historian regarding his alcohol abuse. C l a i m a n t s t a t e d t h a t " b o r e d o m and m e a n i n g l e s s n e s s " t r i g g e r h i s d e p r e s s i o n , a s d o " a n g l Y a n d u p s e t p e o p l e [ . ] " (Tr. 287.) C l a i m a n t admitted to " s o m e " suicidal ideation. (Tr. 287.) C l a i m a n t stated t h a t w h e n h e e x p e r i e n c e s a n x i e t y o r p a n i c , d r i n k i n g a l c o h o l helps. D r . K o l i l i s a s s e s s e d C l a i m a n t ' s G A F at 62 a n d opined that C l a i m a n t is capable o f work-related activities w h e n c l e a n and sober. O n J u l y 2 6 , 2 0 0 5 , Dr. L e B r a y assessed C l a i m a n t ' s functional capacity and limited C l a i m a n t to " r e m e m b e r i n g and understanding instructions w h i c h are s h o r t a n d s i m p l e and s o m e co m p l ex instructions." ( T r . 3 0 7 . ) A s for interaction w i t h the p u b l i c a n d coworkers, C l a i m a n t was limited to b r i e f a n d s t r u c t u r e d c o n t a c t . H o w e v e r , Dr. L e B r a y also s t a t e d : " N o l i m i t a t i o n s n o t e d w h e n c l e a n , s o b e r . " (Tr. 307.) T h e record reflects t h a t at least as e a r l y as J u n e 20, 2005, C l a i m a n t w a s c o m p l e t e l y abstaining from alcohol use, (Tr. 398-99), and b y at least O c t o b e r 19, 2005, C l a i m a n t w a s diagnosed w i t h " A l c o h o l D e p e n d e n c e i n E a r l y Full R e m i s s i o n . " (Tr. 318.) O n F e b r u a r y 2 4 , 2 0 0 7 , Dr. G r e g g S a s h k i n e v a l u a t e d C l a i m a n t ' s P T S D . H e f o u n d t h a t , o v e r a l l , C l a i m a n t ' s s y m p t o m s h a d s i g n i f i c a n t l y w o r s e n e d s i n c e C l a i m a n t ' s s o n r e t u r n e d f r o m Iraq. I n p a r t i c u l a r , C l a i m a n t s u f f e r e d from i n c r e a s e d d e p r e s s i o n , p o o r c o n c e n t r a t i o n , h o p e l e s s n e s s , suicidal ideation, with increased angel' a n d difficulties w i t h his wife. Dr. S a s h k i n diagnosed C l a i m a n t w i t h P T S D , m o d e r a t e to severe, m a j o r depression, alcohol a b u s e i n r e m i s s i o n and assessed C l a i m a n t ' s GAF at 45. (Tr. 491.) A GAF rating b e t w e e n 41 a n d 50 indicates either serious s y m p t o m s , s u c h as s u i c i d a l i d e a t i o n o r o b s e s s i v e r i t u a l s , o r s e r i o u s i m p a i r m e n t i n f u n c t i o n i n g i n school, work, andlor relationships. T h e GAF scale gives as an e x a m p l e o f i m p a i r e d functioning at FINDINGS & R E C O M M E N D A T I O N

13

{KPR}

this level being "unable to keep a j o b . " American Psychiatric Association, D i a g n o s t i c alld Statistical
M a n u a l o fMelltal Disorders, 34 (4th ed. Text Revision ( 2 0 0 0 » .

O n M a r c h 12, 2007, the VA increased Claimant's disability rating for PTSD to seventy percent (70%). This evaluation was based on: suicidal ideation; near-continuous depression affecting the ability to function independently, appropriately and effectively; impaired impulse control, such as anger control problems and il1'itability; reported difficulty in adapting to stressful c i r c u m s t a n c e s ; i n a b i l i t y to e s t a b l i s h a n d m a i n t a i n e f f e c t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s o u t s i d e o f your immediate family; hypervigilance and increased startle reaction; nightmares and i n s o m n i a ; a n d p r o b l e m s w i t h concentration. (Tr. 494.) T h e PTSD diagnosis specifically referred to "second31Y major depression[.]" (Tr. 492.) Overall, the evidentiary record demonstrates that, despite active treatment at the V A to address alcohol abuse, depression, and PTSD, Claimant's symptoms had increased i n severity b y early 2007. (See Tr. 501, where a February 2 0 , 2 0 0 7 , V A progress note stated that Claimant " h a [ d] b e e n v e r y active w i t h t r e a t m e n t . " ) A l t h o u g h s o m e t r e a t m e n t p r o v i d e r s o p i n e d t h a t C l a i m a n t ' s condition would improve i f Claimant's abstained from using alcohol, the evidence demonstrates that despite two years o f sobriety, Claimant's condition had worsened considerably.

I n t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e d i s a b i l i t y r e v i e w p r o c e s s s e t forth b y t h e S S A , t h e c o u r t c o n c l u d e s t h a t
the record mandates a finding o f disability. Dr. Davis testified before the A U that Claimant satisfied subsection (C)(2) o f Listing 12.04. The ALJ interpreted Dr. D a v i s ' s finding to mean that in an a p p r o p r i a t e l y t a i l o r e d w o r k e n v i r o m n e n t , C l a i m a n t w a s c a p a b l e o f p e r f o r m i n g j o b d u t i e s . T h i s is, however, contrary to the framework set forth b y the SSA. In that framework, the listings analysis occurs prior to and separate from the RFC and vocational analysis. The listings are addressed solely to the Claimant's medical condition and, b y meeting or medically equaling a listing, a claimant is

FINDINGS & R E C O M M E N D A T I O N

14

{KPR}

found disabled and is thus precluded from all employment. The context in which Dr. Davis made his statement renders its meaning clear and this conclusion is supported b y the evidentimy record. Claimant meets Listing 12.04 and is thus disabled and all subsequent sequential step analysis is rendered moot. I The C o m m i s s i o n e r ' s argument that enhancement o f the record is necessalY to clarify the effect o f Claimant's alcohol dependence on his disability overlooks the critical fact that Claimant had refi'ained from alcohol use for two years at the time o f his M a y 2007 hearing. The record demonstrates, w i t h o u t q u e s t i o n , t h a t C l a i m a n t h a s abstained f r o m alcohol s i n c e a p p r o x i m a t e l y J u n e 2005. This is n o t to say that Claimant did not suffer from alcohol dependence at the time h e filed his disability application. But, the fact that Claimant's impairments h a v e n o t only persisted but w o r s e n e d s i n c e h e s t o p p e d d r i n k i n g alcohol establishes that C l a i m a n t ' s a l c o h o l d e p e n d e n c e w a s n o t a material factor in his disability and effectively moots the issue for purposes o f disability onset date calculation and the finding o f disability as a whole. The cOUli further notes that the ALJ did not seriously address the alcohol dependence issue, and the court sees no reason to depart fi'om the A L J ' s approach to this issue. The court is similarlyunpersuaded b y the Commissioner's assertion that Claimant's activities o f daily living contradict his claims o f social isolation and undermine the V A ' s disability rating. The crucial distinction i n this case is that all o f Claimant's limitations are non-exertional; Claimant clearly has the physical capacity to perfonn work. I t is C l a i m a n t ' s mental condition that prevents

The Commissioner also argues that Claimant is capable o fperforming the j o b s ofSOlier and s m a l l p r o d u c t s a s s e m b l e r . T h i s a r g u m e n t is m o o t e d , h o w e v e r , b y t h e c o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t Claimant meets or equals Listing 12.04. Because Claimant is disabled at Step Three, the court does not evaluate Claimant's ability to perfOlTIljobs i n the national economy as precluded b y the finding o f disability.
I

FINDINGS & R E C O M M E N D A T I O N

15

{KPR}

him from functioning i n the workplace. I n fact, Dr. S a s h k i n ' s February 2 8 , 2 0 0 7 , assessment states t h a t Claimant " i s competent to h a n d l e his activities o f daily living[,)" (Tr. 491), b u t as Dr. Davis p o i n t e d out i n his testimony, i t w o u l d b e t h e stressors associated w i t h an u n c o n t r o l l e d w o r k environment that w o u l d cause Claimant to seriously decompensate. T h a t Claimant can perfonll tasks a n d e n g a g e i n c o n t r o l l e d a c t i v i t i e s does n o t u n d e r m i n e t h e l e g i t i m a c y o f h i s diagnosed impairments. Conelusion B a s e d o n t h e foregoing reasons, the C o m m i s s i o n e r ' s m o t i o n to r e m a n d for further a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e e d i n g s s h o u l d b e denied. T h e c o u r t s h o u l d r e m a n d t h e c l a i m f o r a n a w a r d o f benefits. Scheduling Order T h e a b o v e F i n d i n g s a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n w i l l b e referred to a U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t Judge f o r r e v i e w . Objections, i f any, are due no later than April 7 , 2 0 0 9 . l f n o objections are filed, review o f t h e Findings and Recommendation will go u n d e r advisement o n that date. I f objections are filed, any p a r t y m a y file a response w i t h i n fOUlteen days after the date the objections are filed. R e v i e w o f t h e Findings and Recommendation w i l l go u n d e r advisement w h e n t h e r e s p o n s e i s d u e o r f i l e d , w h i c h e v e r d a t e i s earlier. D A T E D this 2 4 t h d a y o f M a r c h , 2 0 0 9 .

J ' H N V. A C O S T A U n i t e / S t a t e s Magistrate J u d g e
FINDINGS & R E C O M M E N D A T I O N 16
{KPR}