Hambley v. Astrue

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in favor of the Commissioner and against Sindy Hambler as set forth in the following paragraph; The Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying Sindy Hambley supplemental security income benefits is affirmed; Clerk of Court shall close this case; Signed by Honorable A. Richard Caputo on 12/19/11. (ep, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
SINDY HAMBLEY,
Plaintiff
vs.
MICHAEL ASTRUE,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:10-CV-02580
(Complaint Filed 12/20/10)

(Judge Caputo)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

BACKGROUND
The above-captioned action is one seeking review of a decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") denying Plaintiff Sindy Hambley’s claim
for supplemental security income benefits. For the reasons set forth below we will affirm the
decision of the Commissioner.
Supplemental security income is a federal income supplement program funded
by general tax revenues (not social security taxes). It is designed to help aged, blind or
other disabled individuals who have little or no income.
Hambley was born in the United States on November 17, 1965. Tr. 77.1
Hambley completed the 8th grade in about 1980 and can read, write, speak and understand
English. Tr. 106 and 111. There is no indication that Hambley after withdrawing from
school obtained a General Equivalency Diploma. Id.

Hambley has an extremely limited

References to “Tr. ” are to pages of the administrative record filed by the
Defendant as part of his Answer on December 6, 2010.
1

work and earnings history. Tr. 86-87. It appears that her prior work consisted primarily of
unskilled, light to medium work 2 as a cleaning person. Tr. 107-108 and 113-114. Her total

The terms sedentary, light, medium and heavy work are defined in the regulations
of the Social Security Administration as follows:
2

(a) Sedentary work. Sedentary work involves lifting
no more than 10 pounds at a time and occasionally
lifting or carrying articles like docket files, ledgers, and
small tools. Although a sedentary job is defined as one
which involves sitting, a certain amount of walking and
standing is often necessary in carrying out job duties.
Jobs are sedentary if walking and standing are required
occasionally and other sedentary criteria are met.
(b) Light work. Light work involves lifting no more
than 20 pounds at a time with frequent lifting or
carrying of objects weighing up to 10 pounds. Even
though the weight lifted may be very little, a job is
in this category when it requires a good deal of
walking or standing, or when it involves sitting most
of the time with some pushing and pulling of arm or leg
controls. To be considered capable of performing a
full or wide range of light work, you must have the
ability to do substantially all of these activities.
If someone can do light work, we determine that
he or she can also do sedentary work, unless there
are additional limiting factors such as loss of fine
dexterity or inability to sit for long periods of time.
(c) Medium work. Medium work involves lifting no
more than 50 pounds at a time with frequent lifting or
carrying of objects weighing up to 25 pounds. If
someone can do medium work, we determine that
he or she can do sedentary and light work.
(d) Heavy work. Heavy work involves lifting no more
than 100 pounds at a time with frequent lifting or
carrying of objects weighing up to 50 pounds. If
someone can do heavy work, we determine that he
or she can also do medium, light, and sedentary work.
(continued...)
2

earnings from 1980 through 2009 were $6951.99. Tr. 86.
On January 2, 2008, Hambley protectively filed3 an application for
supplemental security income benefits. Tr. 9 and 77-84. Hambley claimed that she became
disabled on January 2, 2007, because of an irregular heartbeat, poor vision and curvature
of the spine. Tr. 26 and 107.

Hambley contends that she stopped working on July 31,

2007, because her vision got so bad that she was afraid to drive. Tr. 107.
Hambley’s alleged disability onset date of January 2, 2007, has no impact on
Hambley’s application for supplemental security income benefits because supplemental
security income is a needs based program and benefits may not be paid for “any period that
precedes the first month following the date on which an application is filed or, if later, the first
month following the date all conditions for eligibility are met.” See C.F.R. § 416.501.
Consequently, Hambley is not eligible for SSI benefits for any period prior to February 1,
2008.
On June 17, 2008, the Bureau of Disability Determination4 denied Hambley’s
application. Tr. 26-30.

On July 16, 2008, Hambley requested a hearing before an

administrative law judge. Tr. 31-33. A hearing was scheduled for December 17, 2009. Tr.
73. Prior to that hearing Hambley informed the administrative law judge that she would not
2

(...continued)

20 C.F.R. § 416.967.
Protective filing is a term for the first time an individual contacts the Social Security
Administration to file a claim for benefits. A protective filing date allows an individual to
have an earlier application date than the date the application is actually signed.
3

The Bureau of Disability Determination is an agency of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania which initially evaluates applications for supplemental security income
benefits on behalf of the Social Security Administration. Tr. 26.
4

3

appear at the hearing and requested that her claim be decided on the evidence in the
record. Tr. 74. On December 17, 2009, a hearing was held before an administrative law
judge at which the administrative law judge took testimony from a vocational expert. Tr. 1924. On January 4, 2010, the administrative law judge issued a decision denying Hambley’s
application. Tr. 9-16. On January 27, 2010, Hambley filed a request for review with the
Appeals Council and on October 29, 2010, the Appeals Council concluded that there was
no basis upon which to grant Hambley’s request for review. Tr. 1-3. Thus, the administrative
law judge’s decision stood as the final decision of the Commissioner. Hambley then filed
a complaint in this court on December 20, 2010. Supporting and opposing briefs were
submitted and the appeal5 became ripe for disposition on May 21, 2011, when Hambley
elected not to file a reply brief.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
When considering a social security appeal, we have plenary review of all legal
issues decided by the Commissioner. See Poulos v. Commissioner of Social Security, 474
F.3d 88, 91 (3d Cir. 2007); Schaudeck v. Commissioner of Social Sec. Admin., 181 F.3d
429, 431 (3d Cir. 1999); Krysztoforski v. Chater, 55 F.3d 857, 858 (3d Cir. 1995). However,
our review of the Commissioner’s findings of fact pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) is to
determine whether those findings are supported by "substantial evidence." Id.; Brown v.
Bowen, 845 F.2d 1211, 1213 (3d Cir. 1988); Mason v. Shalala, 994 F.2d 1058, 1064 (3d Cir.
1993). Factual findings which are supported by substantial evidence must be upheld. 42

Under the Local Rules of Court “[a] civil action brought to review a decision of the
Social Security Administration denying a claim for social security disability benefits” is
“adjudicated as an appeal.” M.D.Pa. Local Rule 83.40.1.
5

4

U.S.C. §405(g); Fargnoli v. Massanari, 247 F.3d 34, 38 (3d Cir. 2001)(“Where the ALJ’s
findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, we are bound by those findings, even
if we would have decided the factual inquiry differently.”); Cotter v. Harris, 642 F.2d 700, 704
(3d Cir. 1981)(“Findings of fact by the Secretary must be accepted as conclusive by a
reviewing court if supported by substantial evidence.”); Keefe v. Shalala, 71 F.3d 1060,
1062 (2d Cir. 1995); Mastro v. Apfel, 270 F.3d 171, 176 (4th Cir. 2001); Martin v. Sullivan,
894 F.2d 1520, 1529 & 1529 n.11 (11th Cir. 1990).
Substantial evidence “does not mean a large or considerable amount of
evidence, but ‘rather such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.’” Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565 (1988)(quoting
Consolidated Edison Co. v. N.L.R.B., 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)); Johnson v. Commissioner
of Social Security, 529 F.3d 198, 200 (3d Cir. 2008); Hartranft v. Apfel, 181 F.3d 358, 360
(3d Cir. 1999). Substantial evidence has been described as more than a mere scintilla of
evidence but less than a preponderance. Brown, 845 F.2d at 1213. In an adequately
developed factual record substantial evidence may be "something less than the weight of
the evidence, and the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence
does not prevent an administrative agency's finding from being supported by substantial
evidence." Consolo v. Federal Maritime Commission, 383 U.S. 607, 620 (1966).
Substantial evidence exists only "in relationship to all the other evidence in the
record," Cotter, 642 F.2d at 706, and "must take into account whatever in the record fairly
detracts from its weight." Universal Camera Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 340 U.S. 474, 488 (1971).
A single piece of evidence is not substantial evidence if the Commissioner ignores
countervailing evidence or fails to resolve a conflict created by the evidence. Mason, 994
5

F.2d at 1064. The Commissioner must indicate which evidence was accepted, which
evidence was rejected, and the reasons for rejecting certain evidence. Johnson, 529 F.3d
at 203; Cotter, 642 F.2d at 706-707. Therefore, a court reviewing the decision of the
Commissioner must scrutinize the record as a whole. Smith v. Califano, 637 F.2d 968, 970
(3d Cir. 1981); Dobrowolsky v. Califano, 606 F.2d 403, 407 (3d Cir. 1979).
SEQUENTIAL EVALUATION PROCESS
To receive disability benefits, the plaintiff must demonstrate an “inability to
engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical
or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can
be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. §
432(d)(1)(A). Furthermore,
[a]n individual shall be determined to be under a
disability 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, regardless of
whether such work exists in the immediate area in which
he lives, or whether a specific job vacancy exists for
him, or whether he would be hired if he applied for
work. For purposes of the preceding sentence (with
respect to any individual), “work which exists in the
national economy” means work which exists in significant
numbers either in the region where such individual
lives or in several regions of the country.
42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A).
The Commissioner utilizes a five-step process in evaluating disability insurance
and supplemental security income claims. See 20 C.F.R. . § 416.920; Poulos, 474 F.3d at
91-92. This process requires the Commissioner to consider, in sequence, whether a
6

claimant (1) is engaging in substantial gainful activity,6 (2) has an impairment that is severe
or a combination of impairments that is severe,7 (3) has an impairment or combination of
impairments that meets or equals the requirements of a listed impairment,8 (4) has the
residual functional capacity to return to his or her past work and (5) if not, whether he or she
can perform other work in the national economy. Id. As part of step four the administrative
law judge must determine the claimant’s residual functional capacity. Id.9
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

If the claimant is engaging in substantial gainful activity, the claimant is not disabled
and the sequential evaluation proceeds no further.
6

The determination of whether a claimant has any severe impairments, at step two
of the sequential evaluation process, is a threshold test. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). If a
claimant has no impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits the
claimant’s physical or mental abilities to perform basic work activities, the claimant is “not
disabled” and the evaluation process ends at step two. Id. If a claimant has any severe
impairments, the evaluation process continues. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d)-(g). Furthermore,
all medically determinable impairments, severe and non-severe, are considered in the
subsequent steps of the sequential evaluation process. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.923 and
416.945(a)(2).
7

If the claimant has an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or
equals a listed impairment, the claimant is disabled. If the claimant does not have an
impairment or combination of impairments that meets or equals a listed impairment, the
sequential evaluation process proceeds to the next step. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1525 explains
that the listing of impairments “describes for each of the major body systems impairments
that [are] consider[ed] to be severe enough to prevent an individual from doing any gainful
activity, regardless of his or her age, education, or work experience.” Section 404.1525
also explains that if an impairment does not meet or medically equal the criteria of a listing
an applicant for benefits may still be found disabled at a later step in the sequential
evaluation process.
8

If the claimant has the residual functional capacity to do his or her past relevant
work, the claimant is not disabled.
9

7

continuing basis contemplates full-time employment and is defined as eight hours a day, five
days per week or other similar schedule. The residual functional capacity assessment must
include a discussion of the individual’s abilities. Id; 20 C.F.R. § 416.945; Hartranft, 181 F.3d
at 359 n.1 (“‘Residual functional capacity’ is defined as that which an individual is still able
to do despite the limitations caused by his or her impairment(s).”).
MEDICAL RECORDS
During the initial claim process, Hambley was requested to provide information
regarding her medical treatment. Tr. 103-147. Hambley provided very little information. Id.
On February 4, 2008, Hambley indicated in a document entitled “Disability Report - Adult”
that she was treated for chest pain at the Wayne Memorial Hospital on one occasion in
June, 2007. Tr. 109. In a document entitled “Disability Report - Appeals” dated July 25,
2008, Hambley stated that since she last completed a disability report she had only received
treatment at a “hospital” located in “Honesdale” but gave no further details of the treatment.
Tr. 135-147. She further stated that she was taking no medications because she could not
afford them. Tr. 143.
The limited medical records reveal that Hambley on May 8, 2007, visited the
emergency room at Wayne Memorial Hospital, Honesdale, Pennsylvania, with complaints
of chest pain resulting from an assault that occurred a couple days prior to the emergency
room visit. Tr. 165-195.

Hambley appeared well nourished, alert, and oriented. Tr. 166.

Hambley appeared in no acute distress and in no obvious discomfort. Id.

Within thirty

minutes after being escorted to the emergency department, Hambley wanted to leave
against medical advice. Id. She stated that she could not be at the hospital that evening
and wanted to return in the morning. Id. Hambley was informed of her need to have a CT
8

scan of the chest. Id. Hambley responded to that information by stating that she would
have a CT scan as long as she could go outside and smoke a cigarette. Id. Hambley was
permitted to go outside for a cigarette break. Id. After smoking a cigarette Hambley returned
to the emergency room and underwent the CT scan. Id.

While at the hospital cardiac

testing revealed normal findings, including a normal chest x-ray and CT scan of the chest.
Id. Also, blood tests revealed that Hambley had been consuming alcoholic beverages. Tr.
174. Her blood alcohol level was over the legal limit at .082 percent.10 Id. Hambley was
diagnosed with musculoskeletal chest pain and discharged from the hospital with instructions
to follow-up with her family medical doctor and to stop smoking. Tr. 171.
In May, 2008, Hambley was examined by Don W. Henderson, M.D., on behalf
of the Bureau of Disability Determination. Tr. 197-200. Dr. Henderson is Board Certified in
Internal Medicine. Tr. 201. After examining Hambley, Dr. Henderson’s impression was as
follows: “ This is a 42-year-old white female who alleges a bad heart valve, never really
remembers ever having an echocardiogram. She had dyspnea11 on exertion, but she has
been a smoker for a long time and probably is developing early chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease. Her blood pressure is elevated in her right arm when taken twice and
I urged her to find a local physician for followup and to avoid salt. She has no orthopedic
range of motion difficulties.” Tr. 199 (emphasis added). Dr. Henderson found that Hambley
vision was 20/100 in her right eye and 20/25 in her left eye without corrective lenses. Tr. 196
On June 16, 2008, Leo Potera, M.D., a state agency physician, reviewed

10

The legal limit in Pennsylvania is .08 percent. 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3731.

Dyspnea is “difficult or labored breathing.” Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary,
520 (27 Ed. 1988).
11

th

9

Hambley’s available medical records and completed a Physical Residual Functional
Capacity Assessment form. Tr. 202-208. Dr. Potera concluded that Hambley had the ability
to engage in medium work on a full-time basis.
The record reveals that in January, 2009, the administrative law judge took
steps to develop the medical evidence by requiring Hambley to submit information regarding
her medical treatment and undergo an examination at the Northeastern Eye Institute,
Scranton. Tr. 149-64. On two occasions Hambley was referred for an eye examination and
on both occasions Hambley failed to keep the appointments. Tr. 14 and 148-150.
DISCUSSION
The administrative law judge at step one of the sequential evaluation process
found that Hambley had not engaged in substantial gainful work activity since January 2,
2008, the date her application for SSI benefits was filed. Tr. 11.

In so finding the

administrative law judge stated as follows: “The claimant’s earnings record showed earnings
of $400.73 for 2007. Although the claimant worked after the alleged disability onset date this
work activity did not rise to the level of substantial gainful activity.” Id.
At step two of the sequential evaluation process, the administrative law judge
found that Hambley had the following severe impairments: high blood pressure, poor vision
in the right eye, and dyspnea on exertion. Id.

The administrative law judge found that

Hambley’s complaints of chest and low back pain were non-severe impairments. Id.
At step three of the sequential evaluation process the administrative law judge
found that Hambley’s impairments did not individually or in combination meet or equal a
listed impairment. Tr. 12.
At steps four and five of the sequential evaluation process the administrative
10

law judge found that Hambley had no prior relevant work but that she had the residual
functional capacity to perform a limited range of medium work,12 as a warehouse worker,
kitchen helper and bagger, and there were a significant number of such jobs in the regional
and national economies. Tr. 12-16. In so finding the administrative law judge relied on the
opinions of Dr. Henderson and Dr. Potera and the testimony of the vocational expert . Tr.
14 and 16.
The administrative record in this case is 208 pages in length and we have
thoroughly reviewed that record. The administrative law judge did a thorough job of
reviewing Hambley’s vocational history and medical records in his decision. Tr. 11-16.
Furthermore, the brief submitted by the Commissioner adequately reviews the medical and
vocational evidence in this case. Doc. 9, Brief of Defendant. Hambley’s only argument is
that the case should be remanded for further proceedings because the administrative law
judge did not appropriately develop the record. We find no merit in Hambley’s argument.
Hambley failed to attend two consultative examinations regarding her alleged
vision problems. Hambley also declined to attend the administrative hearing and requested
that the administrative law judge make a decision based on the evidence in the record. The
administrative law judge took appropriate steps to develop the record. Hambley has not
proffered as part of the present appeal any additional medical records or suggested that
there are additional medical records to be found which would draw into question the

The administrative law judge accommodated Hambley alleged breathing and
vision problems. Tr. 13. He provided as follows: “[Hambley] must avoid concentrated
exposure to hazards such as moving machinery and heights, and irritants such as dust,
odors, fumes, gases, chemicals, and poorly ventilated spaces. She is capable of learning,
understanding, remembering, and performing work tasks that do not require fine far visual
acuity, fine depth perception, or a significant field of vision with the right eye.” Id.
12

11

administrative law judge’s decision denying her benefits. Finally, Hambley has the option
to file a new application for supplemental security income benefits based on any new
evidence of medical treatment for a disabling condition.13
Our review of the administrative record reveals that the decision of the
Commissioner is supported by substantial evidence. We will, therefore, pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 405(g) affirm the decision of the Commissioner.
An appropriate order will be entered.

s/A. Richard Caputo
A. RICHARD CAPUTO
United States District Judge

Dated: December 16, 2011

Supplemental security income is a needs based program and eligibility for this
benefit is not limited based on an applicant’s date last insured.
13

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
SINDY HAMBLEY,
Plaintiff
vs.
MICHAEL ASTRUE,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:10-CV-02580
(Complaint Filed 12/20/10)

(Judge Caputo)

ORDER
In accordance with the accompanying memorandum, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT:
1. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in favor of the Commissioner
and against Sindy Hambley as set forth in the following paragraph.
2. The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying Sindy
Hambley supplemental security income benefits is affirmed.
3. The Clerk of Court shall close this case.

s/A. Richard Caputo
A. RICHARD CAPUTO
United States District Judge

Dated: December 16, 2011

13