NACE v. MICHAEL ASTRUE
Filing
12
MEMORANDUM JUDGMENT ORDER denying 6 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and granting 10 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is affirmed. Signed by Judge Gustave Diamond on 9/12/11. (gpr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JAMES D. NACE,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 10-421
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE ,
COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM JUDGMENT ORDER
AND
NOW,
12~ay
this
of
September,
2011,
upon
due
consideration of the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment
pursuant to plaintiff's request for review of the decision of the
Commissioner
of
Social
Security
( "Commissioner" )
denying
plaintiff's application for disability insurance benefits under
Title II of the Social Security Act ("Act"), IT IS ORDERED that
the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment (Document No. 10)
be,
and the same hereby is,
summary judgment
granted and plaintiff's motion for
(Document No.6)
be,
and the same hereby is,
denied.
As the factfinder, an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") has an
obligation to weigh all of the facts and evidence of record and
may rej ect
or discount
reasons for doing so.
Cir.1999).
any evidence
if
the ALJ explains
the
Plummer v. Apfel,
186 F.3d 422, 429
(3d
Importantly,
where the ALJ's findings of fact are
supported by substantial evidence, a reviewing court is bound by
IlibAon
(Rev. 8/82)
those findings, even if it would have decided the factual inquiry
differently.
2001).
Fargnoli v.
Massanari l
247 F.3d 34
38
1
(3d Cir.
These well-established principles preclude a reversal or
remand of the ALJ' s decision here because the record contains
substantial
evidence
to
support
the
ALJ's
findings
and
conclusions.
Plaintiff protectively filed
his pending application for
disability insurance benefits on February
disability
disorder
onset
and
initially.
date
of
headaches.
December
2006
19 1
Plaintiffls
2007
21
I
I
due
application
alleging a
to
bipolar
was
denied
At plaintiffls request an ALJ held a hearing on July
24, 2008 1 at which plaintiff l represented by counsell appeared and
testified.
On September 25,
2008,
the ALJ issued a
finding that plaintiff is not disabled.
decision
On February 26 1 2010 1 the
Appeals Council denied review making the ALJ/s decision the final
decision of the Commissioner.
Plaintiff was 36 years old at the time of the ALJ's decision
and is classified as a younger person under the regulations.
C.F.R. §404.1563{c).
20
He has a high school education and has past
relevant work experience as a corrections officer, but he has not
engaged in any substantial gainful activity since his alleged
onset date.
After
testimony
reviewing
from
plaintiffls
plaintiff
and
a
medical
records
vocational
and
expert,
hearing
the
ALJ
concluded that plaintiff is not disabled within the meaning of the
Act.
The ALJ found that although the medical evidence establishes
that plaintiff suffers from the severe impairments of degenerative
'Aon
(Rev. 8/82)
2
joint disease of the lumbar spine,
migraine headaches,
bipolar
disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, alcoholism and a history
of marijuana abuse, those impairments, alone or in combination, do
not meet or equal the criteria of any of the impairments listed at
Appendix 1 of 20 C.F.R., Part 404, Subpart P.
The
ALJ
also
found
that
plaintiff
(R.
12).
retains
the
residual
functional capacity to perform work at the light exertional level
but with numerous
restrictions accounting for the limitations
arising from his physical and mental impairments. l
expert identified numerous categories of
A vocational
jobs which plaintiff
could perform based upon his age, education, work experience and
residual
sorter,
functional
capacity,
including
mail
cafeteria helper and conveyor loader.
clerk,
garment
Relying on the
vocational expert's testimony, the ALJ found that while plaintiff
cannot perform his past relevant work, he is capable of making an
adjustment to work which exists in significant numbers in the
national economy.
Accordingly, the ALJ determined that plaintiff
is not disabled.
Specifically, the ALJ found that plaintiff is "limited to
no more than occasional postural maneuvers
must avoid
occupations that require climbing on ladders, ropes and scaffolds,
is limited to occupations requiring no more than simple, routine,
repetitive tasks, not performed in a fast-paced production
environment, involving only simple, work-related decisions, and in
general, relatively few work place changes, is limited to
occupations which require no more than occasional interaction with
supervisors and coworkers and no interaction with members of the
general public, is further limited to occupations which do not
involve the handling, sale or preparation of alcoholic beverages
or access to narcotic drugs, and must avoid occupations that are
in the medical field.(R. 17).
1
'llloA072
(Rev, 8/82)
- 3
The Act defines "disability" as the inability to engage in
substantial gainful activity by reason of a physical or mental
impairment which can be expected to last for a continuous period
of
at
least
twelve
months.
42
U.S.C.
§423 (d) (1) (A) .
The
impairment or impairments must be so severe that the claimant "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
.... " 42 U.S.C. §423 (d) (1) (B) .
The Commissioner has promulgated regulations incorporating a
five-step sequential evaluation process 2 for determining whether
a claimant is under a disability.
20 C.F.R. §404.1520; Newell v.
Commissioner of Social Security, 347 F.3d 541, 545 (3d Cir. 2003) .
If the claimant is found disabled or not disabled at any step, the
claim need not be reviewed further.
Id.; see Barnhart v. Thomas,
124 S.Ct. 376 (2003).
Here, plaintiff alleges that:
(1) the ALJ erred at step 3 by
finding that plaintiff's mental disorders do not meet the criteria
The ALJ must determine in sequence:
(1) whether the
claimant currently is engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2)
if not, whether he has a severe impairment; (3) if so, whether his
impairment meets or equals the criteria listed in 20 C.F.R. Part
404, Subpart P, Appendix 1: (4) if not, whether the claimant's
impairment prevents him from performing his past-relevant work;
and, (5) if so, whether the claimant can perform any other work
which exists in the national economy in light of his age,
education, work experience and residual functional capacity. 20
C.F.R. §404.1520. In addition, when there is evidence of a mental
impairment that allegedly prevents a claimant from working, the
Commissioner must follow the procedure for evaluating mental
impairments set forth in the regulations. Plummer, 186 F.2d at
432; 20 C.F.R. §404.1520a.
2
f1!I,Aon
(Rev. 8182)
- 4
of Listings 12.04 and 12.06; and,
(2) the ALJ improperly evaluated
plaintiff's subjective complaints.
Upon review,
the court is
satisfied that the ALJ properly evaluated the evidence and that
all of his findings are supported by substantial evidence.
Plaintiff first challenges the ALJ's step 3 finding that his
mental impairments do not meet or equal any listing.
At step 3,
the ALJ must determine whether the claimant's impairment matches,
or is equivalent to, one of the listed impairments.
Burnett v.
Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 220 F.3d 112, 119
(3d Cir. 2000).
The listings describe impairments that prevent
an adult, regardless of age, education, or work experience, from
performing any gainful activity.
(3d Cir.
2000) i 20 C.F.R.
Knepp v. Apfel, 204 F.3d 78, 85
§404.1520(d).
"If the impairment is
equivalent to a listed impairment then [the claimant]
disabled and no further analysis is necessary."
Burnett
is per se
I
220 F. 3d
at 119.
The burden is on the ALJ to identify the relevant listed
impairment
in the
federal
claimant's impairment.
regulations
Id.
that
at 120 n.2.
compares with the
The ALJ must
"fully
develop the record and explain his findings at step 3, including
an analysis of whether and why [the claimant's]
'"
impairments
... are or are not equivalent in severity to one of the listed
impairments."
However,
the burden is on the claimant to
present medical findings that show that his impairment matches a
listing or is equal in severity to a listed impairment.
v. Sullivan, 970 F.2d 1178, 1186 (3d Cir. 1992).
~A072
(Rev. 8/82)
- 5
Williams
In this case, as required under Burnett, the ALJ identified
Listings 12.04 (affective disorders) and 12.06 (anxiety related
disorders) as the relevant listings that compare with plaintiff's
severe
mental
impairments,
then
thoroughly
explained
why
plaintiff's impairments do not satisfy those listings. (R. 13-17).
Specifically,
the ALJ determined that
although plaintiff
satisfies the "A" criteria of listings 12.04 and 12.06, he fails
to meet the "B" criteria of either listing.
The "B" criteria of
12.04 and 12.06 are identical and require that a claimant's mental
impairment must result
in at
least two of the following:
\\1.
Marked restriction of activities of daily living; or 2. Marked
difficulties
in maintaining
social
functioning i
or
3.
Marked
difficulties in maintaining concentration, persistence or pace;
or
I
4.
Repeated episodes of decompensation,
duration."
each of extended
20 C.F.R., Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, Listing
12.04B (emphasis added).
In this case, the ALJ reviewed the evidence and determined
that plaintiff's mental impairments result in mild restrictions
in
activities
maintaining
of
social
daily
living;
functioning;
and
moderate
moderate
difficulties
difficulties
in
in
concentration, persistence or pace, and also that plaintiff has
had no episodes of decompensation of an extended duration.
13-16).
of
the
(R.
Because plaintiff does not have marked limitations in any
relevant
areas,
nor
has
he
had
any
episodes
of
decompensation, the ALJ found that plaintiff does not meet the "B"
criteria of 12.04 or 12.06.
As the required level of severity is
'Aon
(Rev.8f82)
- 6
met only when both the "A" and "B" criteria are satisfied, the ALJ
concluded that plaintiff does not meet either listing.)
The ALJ more than adequately explained in his comprehensive
step 3 analysis why plaintiff's impairments, either singly or in
combination, do not meet or equal the severity of Listings 12.04
and 12.06,
and his step 3 finding is supported by substantial
evidence as outlined in his decision.
(R. 13-17).
Plaintiff suggests that the ALJ did not properly account for
Dr. Sedlock's conclusion that plaintiff has "marked" limitations
in his ability to respond appropriately with supervisors and co
workers and to respond to work pressures in a usual work setting.
(R.
However,
18S).
opinion
regarding
explained
why
particular,
he
the ALJ expressly addressed Dr.
plaintiff's
gave
that
limitations
opinion
the ALJ noted that Dr.
and
diminished
Sedlock's
sufficiently
weight.
Sedlock's opinion:
In
(1)
is
inconsistent with his own generally benign objective findings and
is not
"marked"
supported by any significant analysis
limitations;
(2)
was
regarding these
rendered after a
one-time only
consultation; and, (3) failed to even address a question regarding
drugs and alcohol by stating it was "not applicable.
1f
(R.
21).
Moreover, to the extent Dr. Sedlock noted marked restrictions
in plaintiff's ability to respond appropriately to work pressures
in a usual work setting, the ALJ accommodated such difficulties
) The ALJ also found that plaintiff does not meet the lie"
criteria of Listing 12.04.
This finding is not in dispute and
also is supported by substantial evidence in the record.
'IloA072
(Rev, 8182)
-
7
in his residual functional capacity finding at step 5 by limiting
plaintiff to occupations requiring no more than simple, routine,
repetitive
tasks,
not
performed
in
a
fast-paced
production
environment, involving only simple, work-related decisions, and,
in general,
further
relatively few work place changes.
accounted
for
plaintiff's
difficulty
(R.17).
in
He
interacting
appropriately to supervisors and co-workers by limiting plaintiff
to occupations which require no more than occasional interaction
with supervisors and coworkers and no interaction with members of
the general public.
Plaintiff also contends that the ALJ failed to consider in
his step 3 analysis
"multiple instances where plaintiff's GAF
score falls below 50."
The GAF score considers psychological,
social and occupational functioning on a hypothetical continuum
of mental health. See American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) (4 th ed. 1994).
A GAF rating of 41-50 is meant to indicate "serious" symptoms or
"serious" impairment in social and occupational functioning.
A
rating of 51 to 60 is meant to indicate "moderate" symptoms or
"moderate" difficulty in social or occupational functioning.
Id.
at 34.
The court
is
satisfied that
the ALJ properly considered
plaintiff's GAF scores in his decision.
First, the use of the GAF
scale
Security Administration
is
because
not
its
endorsed
scores
do
by
not
the
Social
have
a
direct
correlation
disability requirements and standards of the Act.
'A072
(Rev. 8/82)
-
8
to
the
See 65 Fed. Reg.
50746,
50764-65
(2000).
Instead,
the ALJ is to consider the
clinical findings contained in the narrative reports of medical
sources,
and is to weigh that evidence under the standards set
forth in the regulations for evaluating medical opinion evidence,
taking
into account
supportability,
numerous
consistency
factors
and
including
the
specialization.
opinion's
20
C.F.R.
§404 .1527 (d) .
Here,
the
ALJ
adhered
to
the
foregoing
addressing all of the medical evidence.
standards
Moreover,
in
as the ALJ
notes, Dr. Young, plaintiff's treating psychiatrist, indicated GAF
ratings of 52 and 54,
summer
of
marijuana,
2008
indicating moderate symptoms, around the
after
plaintiff
quit
drinking
and
smoking
(R. 19), and, as explained in detail by the ALJ, marked
restrictions in any of the requisite functional areas necessary
to satisfy the "B" criteria of Listings 12.04 and 12.06 simply are
not
supported by
ratings
at
reviewed
the evidence,
various
the
specific
record and
is
regardless
points
in
satisfied
of
The
time.
that
any sub-50
GAF
court
the ALJ's
has
step
3
analysis and findings are supported by substantial evidence.
The court also is satisfied that the ALJ properly evaluated
plaintiff's
subj ective
complaints
accordance with the regulations.
SSR 96-7p.
ALJ
of
pain and
limitations
in
20 C.F.R. §404.1529(c); see also
As required, in assessing plaintiff's credibility, the
considered
plaintiff's
subjective
complaints,
but
also
considered those complaints in light of the medical evidence,
plaintiff's treatment history and all of the other evidence.
~A072
(Rev. 8/82)
- 9
The ALJ did a very thorough job in his decision explaining
why plaintiff's statements concerning the intensity, persistence
and limiting effects of his impairments are not entirely credible.
(R.
17-22).
Briefly,
the
ALJ
first
noted
that
plaintiff's
complaints of debilitating limitations arising from his migraine
headaches and back pain were not consistent with the documentary
medical evidence or obj ective medical findings, which he discusses
in detail in his decision.
(R. 18).
Likewise, the ALJ found that
the clinical and objective findings and results of mental status
examinations have not revealed any debilitating findings arising
from
plaintiff's mental
plaintiff's
complaints
impairments,
were
(R.
inconsistent
19),
and also
with
his
that
treatment
history for both his physical and mental impairments.
(R.
20).
The ALJ further pointed out that plaintiff's allegations of
totally
disabling
symptoms
activities of daily living,
three Children,
also
are
inconsistent
which include,
taking care of
with
inter alia,
his
raising
pets and performing household
chores, including mowing the lawn, as well as going bowling and
golfing,
attending AA meetings and playing fantasy football.
(R.19) .
Moreover, while it is true, as plaintiff now asserts, that
sporadic and transitory activities cannot be used to show an
ability to engage in substantial gainful activity,
247 F.3d at 40, n.S, the ALJ did not do so here.
determining plaintiff's residual
functional
~
Fargnoli,
Instead, in
capacity,
the ALJ
properly considered plaintiff's allegations in light of not only
'A072
(Rev, 8/82)
- 10
his activities of daily living but also in light of the medical
evidence which revealed the absence of clinical and objective
findings
supporting
plaintiff's
debilitating symptoms.
allegations
of
totally
(R. 19-20).
The ALJ further explained why he believes that plaintiff's
medication regimen for his impairments is entirely inconsistent
with an individual experiencing debilitating symptoms.
He noted
that plaintiff was taking no medication at all for his headaches
and
back
pain,
and
that
he
has
been
taking
the
same
two
medications for his mental impairments for years, indicating that
they are controlling his
symptoms.
(R.
20).
To the extent
plaintiff takes issue with the ALJ's consideration of plaintiff's
medication regimen, the ALJ properly did so under the regulations,
as 20 C.F.R. §404.1S29(c) (3) (iv) authorizes anALJ to consider the
effectiveness
of
medication
in
determining
the
intensity,
persistence and limiting effects of a claimant's symptoms.
Plaintiff's
argument
that
the
"ALJ's
opinion
fails
to
address" plaintiff's testimony that he still is suffering from his
symptoms is unpersuasive.
A review of the ALJ's decision makes
clear that he in fact did consider plaintiff's testimony and did
not reject his subjective complaints entirely.
Rather,
to the
extent plaintiff's allegations as to limitations arising from his
impairments are supported by the medical and other evidence, the
ALJ accommodated those
capacity finding.
limitations in his residual functional
Only to the extent they were not so supported
did the ALJ find them to be not credible.
'A072
(Rev. 8/82)
- 11
The court is satisfied
that the ALJ's evaluation of plaintiff's credibility is supported
by substantial evidence.
After
carefully and methodically considering all
medical and other evidence of
testimony,
supported
erroneous.
by
the
as well as plaintiff's
the ALJ determined that plaintiff
within the meaning of the Act.
are
record,
of
is not disabled
The ALJ's findings and conclusions
substantial
evidence
and
are
not
otherwise
Accordingly, the decision of the Commissioner must be
affirmed.
~~2m/
Gustave Diamond
United States District Judge
cc: Jessica L. Rafferty, Esq.
QuatriniRafferty, P.C.
550 E. Pittsburgh Street
Greensburg, PA 15601
Paul D. Kovac
Assistant United States Attorney
700 Grant Street
Suite 4000
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
'%AO 72
(Rev. 8/82)
- 12
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?