Chandler v. Astrue

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM PURSUANT TO LOCAL APPELLATE RULE 3.1. (See memorandum for details.) Signed by Honorable Malcolm Muir on 5/6/11. (bw, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
KACEE LEE CHANDLER,
Plaintiff
vs.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

No. 4:10-CV-1047
(Complaint Filed 5/14/10)
(Judge Muir)

MEMORANDUM PURSUANT TO LOCAL APPELLATE RULE 3.1
May 6, 2011
The above-captioned action was one seeking review of a
decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner")
denying Plaintiff Kacee Lee Chandler’s claim for social security
disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income
benefits.

By order of March 8, 2011, we directed that judgment be

entered in favor of Plaintiff and that the case be remanded to the
Commissioner for further proceedings.
On May 5, 2011, the Commissioner filed a notice of
appeal relating to our order of March 8, 2011. The purpose of this
memorandum is to provide a written amplification of our prior
order pursuant to Local Appellate Rule 3.1 which states in
relevant part as follows:
No later than 30 days after the docketing of a notice
of appeal, the trial judge may file and transmit to
the parties a written opinion or a written
amplification of a prior written or oral recorded
ruling or opinion.

In our order of March 8, 2011, we stated that the residual
functional assessment is a medical one and must be determined on
the basis of medical evidence and that if an administrative law
judge makes a residual functional capacity assessment on the basis
of his or her review of the evidence, including the medical
records, without the benefit of an expert opinion from a physician
or psychologist the administrative law judge has improperly
substituted his or her own lay medical opinion for that of a
physician or psychologist.

The purpose of this memorandum is to

amplify that statement.
We recognize that the residual functional capacity
assessment must be based on a consideration of all the evidence in
the record, including the testimony of the claimant regarding her
activities of daily living,

medical records, lay evidence and

evidence of pain. See Burnett v. Commissioner of Social Sec.
Admin., 220 F.3d 112, 121-122 (3d Cir 2000).

However, rarely can

a decision be made regarding a claimant’s residual functional
capacity without an assessment from a physician regarding the
functional abilities of the claimant. See Doak v. Heckler, 790
F.2d 26, 29 (3d Cir.1986)(“No physician suggested that the
activity Doak could perform was consistent with the definition of
light work set forth in the regulations, and therefore the ALJ’s
conclusion that he could is not supported by substantial
evidence.”);

20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a).

explained:
2

As two commentators have

Sometimes administrative law judges assert that they and not physicians - have the right to make residual
functional capacity determinations. In fact, it can
reasonably be asserted that the ALJ has the right
to determine whether a claimant can engage in
sedentary, light, medium, or heavy work. The ALJ
should not assume that physicians know the Social
Security Administration’s definitions of those
terms. However, the underlying determination is a
medical determination, i.e., that the claimant can
lift five, 20, 50, or 100 pounds, and can stand for
30 minutes, two hours, six hours, or eight hours.
That determination must be made by a doctor. Once
the doctor has determined how long the claimant can
sit, stand or walk, and how much weight the claimant
can lift and carry, then the ALJ, with the aid of a
vocational expert if necessary, can translate that
medical determination into a residual functional
capacity determination. Of course, in such a situation
a residual functional capacity determination is merely
a mechanical determination, because the regulations
clearly and explicitly define the various types of
work that can be performed by claimants, based upon
their physical capacities.
Carolyn A. Kubitschek & Jon C. Dubin, Social Security Disability
Law and Procedure in Federal Courts, 287-88 (2011)(emphasis
added); see also Woodford v. Apfel, 93 F.Supp.2d 521, 529
(S.D.N.Y. 2000)(“An ALJ commits legal error when he makes a
residual functional capacity determination based on medical
reports that do not specifically explain the scope of claimant’s
work-related capabilities.”); Zorilla v. Chater, 915 F.Supp. 662,
667 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)(“The lay evaluation of an ALJ is not
sufficient evidence of the claimant’s work capacity; an
explanation of the claimant’s functional capacity from a doctor is
required.”).

The administrative law judge cannot speculate as to

a claimant’s residual functional capacity but must have

3

medical

evidence, and generally a medical opinion regarding the functional
capabilities of the claimant, supporting his determination. Id.
In this case there was no timely and relevant assessment of the
functional capabilities of Plaintiff from a physician and the bare
medical records and other non-medical evidence were insufficient
for the administrative law judge to conclude that Plaintiff had
the residual functional capacity to engage in a limited range of
sedentary work on a full-time basis.1
Finally, at pages 4 and 5 of our order we incorporated
for the purpose of background portions of an affidavit submitted
by Chandler’s attorney to the Appeals Council.

Although the

Appeals Council considered that affidavit as stated in its
decision of March 19, 2010, the affidavit was not used by us as a
basis to remand the case.

The primary reason for remand as noted

above was the lack of substantial evidence supporting the

1. At page 14 of our order of March 8, 2011, we stated:
“Residual functional capacity is the individual’s maximum
remaining ability to do sustained work activities in an ordinary
work setting on a regular and continuing basis. See Social
Security Ruling 96-8p, 61 Fed. Reg. 34475 (July 2, 1996). A
regular and continuing basis contemplates full-time employment
and is defined as eight hours a day, five days per week or other
similar schedule.”
4

administrative law judge’s residual functional capacity
assessment.

s/Malcolm Muir
MUIR
United States District Judge
MM:gs

5