JOHNSON v. BERRYHILL

Filing 15

OPINION and ORDER granting 10 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 12 Motion for Summary Judgment. It is further ordered that the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is hereby vacated and the case is remanded for further administrative proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion. Signed by Judge Donetta W. Ambrose on 5/23/18. (slh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BARBARA JEAN JOHNSON,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
-vsNANCY A. BERRYHILL,1
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.

Civil Action No. 17-574

AMBROSE, Senior District Judge

OPINION
Pending before the Court are Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. (ECF Nos. 10 and
12). Both parties have filed Briefs in Support of their Motions. (ECF Nos. 11 and 13). After
careful consideration of the submissions of the parties, and based on my Opinion set forth below,
I am granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 10) and denying Defendant’s
Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 12).
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff brought this action for review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social
Security denying her application for supplemental security income pursuant to the Social Security
Act. Plaintiff filed her application alleging she has been disabled since March 1, 2000. (ECF
No. 8-8, p. 2). Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), Natalie Appetta, held a hearing on July 22,
2015. (ECF No. 8-3, pp. 2-46). On September 8, 2015, the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision
finding Plaintiff was not disabled under the Act. (ECF No. 8-2, pp. 34-45).

1

Nancy A. Berryhill became acting Commissioner of Social Security on January 23, 2017, replacing
Carolyn W. Colvin.

1

After exhausting all administrative remedies, Plaintiff filed the instant action with this court.
The parties have filed Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. (ECF Nos. 10 and 12). The issues
are now ripe for review.
II. LEGAL ANALYSIS
A. Standard of Review
The standard of review in social security cases is whether substantial evidence exists in
the record to support the Commissioner’s decision. Allen v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 37, 39 (3d Cir.
1989). Substantial evidence has been defined as “more than a mere scintilla. It means such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate.” Ventura v. Shalala, 55 F.3d
900, 901 (3d Cir. 1995), quoting Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). Additionally,
the Commissioner’s findings of fact, if supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive. 42
U.S.C. §405(g); Dobrowolsky v. Califano, 606 F.2d 403, 406 (3d Cir. 1979). A district court
cannot conduct a de novo review of the Commissioner’s decision or re-weigh the evidence of
record. Palmer v. Apfel, 995 F.Supp. 549, 552 (E.D. Pa. 1998). Where the ALJ's findings of
fact are supported by substantial evidence, a court is bound by those findings, even if the court
would have decided the factual inquiry differently. Hartranft v. Apfel, 181 F.3d 358, 360 (3d Cir.
1999). To determine whether a finding is supported by substantial evidence, however, the district
court must review the record as a whole. See, 5 U.S.C. §706.
To be eligible for social security benefits, the plaintiff must demonstrate that he cannot
engage in substantial gainful activity because of a 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 at least 12 months. 42 U.S.C. §423(d)(1)(A); Brewster v. Heckler,
786 F.2d 581, 583 (3d Cir. 1986).

2

The Commissioner has provided the ALJ with a five-step sequential analysis to use when
evaluating the disabled status of each claimant.

20 C.F.R. §404.1520(a).

The ALJ must

determine: (1) whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) if not,
whether the claimant has a severe impairment; (3) if the claimant has a severe impairment,
whether it meets or equals the criteria listed in 20 C.F.R., pt. 404, subpt. P., appx. 1; (4) if the
impairment does not satisfy one of the impairment listings, whether the claimant’s impairments
prevent him from performing his past relevant work; and (5) if the claimant is incapable of
performing his past relevant work, whether he 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.

The claimant carries the initial burden of demonstrating by medical

evidence that he is unable to return to his previous employment (steps 1-4). Dobrowolsky, 606
F.2d at 406. Once the claimant meets this burden, the burden of proof shifts to the Commissioner
to show that the claimant can engage in alternative substantial gainful activity (step 5). Id.
A district court, after reviewing the entire record may affirm, modify, or reverse the decision
with or without remand to the Commissioner for rehearing. Podedworny v. Harris, 745 F.2d 210,
221 (3d Cir. 1984).
B.

Residual Functional Capacity (RFC)2

In this case, the ALJ determined Plaintiff has the RFC to perform light work with both
mental and physical limitations. (ECF No. 8-2, pp. 39-44). Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred
by rejecting the only medical source statement on record. (ECF No. 11, pp. 10-12). While the

2

RFC refers to the most a claimant can still do despite his/her limitations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a),
416.945(a). The assessment must be based upon all of the relevant evidence, including the medical
records, medical source opinions, and the individual’s subjective allegations and description of his/her
own limitations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 416.945(a)(3). Additionally, a person’s RFC is an
administrative finding reserved for the ALJ, not a medical opinion to be rendered by a doctor. 20 C.F.R.
§§404.1527, 416.927; 20 C.F.R. §§404.1546(c), 416.946(c).

3

ALJ gave “great weight” to the decision of the state agency medical consultant’s determination,
Plaintiff submits that the state agency medical consultant never performed a psychiatric review
technique, “nor found that there was any mental impairment due to insufficient evidence at that
time.” (ECF No. 11, p. 11). Therefore, Plaintiff contends that the record contains no medical
opinion evidence upon which to base an RFC. Id. As such, Plaintiff maintains that the ALJ’s
decision is not supported by substantial evidence and remand is appropriate. Id. After a review
of the record, I agree.
On August 28, 2013, the state agency psychological consultant, Michelle R. Santilli,
Psy.D., indicated that a consultative examination was required to determine Plaintiff’s mental
health issues. (ECF No. 8-4, p. 4). She further indicated that Plaintiff failed to attend her
consultative examination and neither “her nor the third party have responded to calls.” Id. As a
result, the evidence was insufficient for Dr. Santilli to make a determination. Id.

(ECF No. 8-

4, p. 5). Therefore, Dr. Santilli offered no psychiatric opinion. Id. Yet, apparently, the ALJ gave
this non-decision “great weight.” (ECF No. 8-2, p. 44).

I find this entirely perplexing.

On May 4, 2015, Dr. Margaret Boerio, D.O. performed a psychiatric consultative
examination. (ECF No. 8-14, pp. 2-13). This is the only actual psychiatric opinion evidence of
record. There was no other mental opinion evidence. (ECF No. 8-2, pp. 34-45). In other
words, there is no other opinion evidence of record regarding Plaintiff’s mental functional abilities
upon which the ALJ could have relied upon in forming the RFC for Plaintiff.
Dr. Boerio’s opinion little weight. (ECF No. 8-2, p. 43).

Id. The ALJ gave

“Rarely can a decision be made

regarding a claimant’s [RFC] without an assessment from a physician regarding the functional
abilities of the claimant.” Gormont v. Astrue, No. 11-2145, 2013 WL 791455 at *7 (M.D. Pa. Mar.
4, 2013), citing Doak v. Heckler, 790 F.2d 26 (3d Cir. 1986). Furthermore, “an administrative law
judge lacks the expertise to ascertain a claimant's residual functional capacity from raw medical

4

data.” Moffatt v. Astrue, No. CIV.A. 10-226, 2010 WL 3896444, at *6 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 30, 2010)
(citations omitted).

This is especially true in this case given Plaintiff’s mental history.

Additionally, I note that the ALJ found Plaintiff was not entirely credible. (ECF No. 8-2, p. 40).
The ALJ limited Plaintiff to light work with numerous mental exceptions.3 After a review of the
record, I find the ALJ’s opinion is not based on substantial evidence. Consequently, remand is
warranted on this basis.4
An appropriate order shall follow.

The ALJ found Plaintiff had the RFC to perform light work except she is limited to “routine repetitive work
considered entry level work in a stable work environment where the work location and processes would
generally stay the same; no interaction with the public other than merely incidental (defined as absolutely
necessary to perform the essential functions of the job); no interaction with co-workers other than
incidental; no team work; work with things rather than people; occasional interaction with supervisors, no
production rate pace work and no jobs where reading is an essential function of the job.” (ECF No. 8-2,
p. 39).
3

4Plaintiff

also argues that the ALJ failed to properly reconcile apparent conflicts between the RFC and the
vocational expert (“VE”) testimony. (ECF No. 11, pp. 11-12). Since I am remanding this case on the
basis that the RFC is not based on substantial evidence and on remand the case shall be considered
again de novo, I need not consider this issue.

5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BARBARA JEAN JOHNSON,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
-vsNANCY A. BERRYHILL,5
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.

Civil Action No. 17-574

AMBROSE, Senior District Judge

ORDER OF COURT
THEREFORE, this 23rd day of May, 2018, it is ordered that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 10) is granted and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 12)
is denied.
It is further ordered that the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is hereby
vacated and the case is remanded for further administrative proceedings consistent with the
foregoing opinion.

BY THE COURT:
s/ Donetta W. Ambrose
Donetta W. Ambrose
United States Senior District Judge

5

Nancy A. Berryhill became acting Commissioner of Social Security on January 23, 2017, replacing
Carolyn W. Colvin.

6