SETTLEMYER v. ASTRUE
Filing
16
MEMORANDUM JUDGMENT ORDER granting 9 plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and denying 13 defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. The case is remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings. See Memorandum Judgment Order for further details. Signed by Judge Gustave Diamond on 6/28/12.(kw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MELISSA SETTLEMYER,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 11-150J
v.
MICHAEL J. AS TRUE ,
COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM JUDGMENT ORDER
AND NOW, this
of the parties'
rv-
~F day of June, 2012, upon due consideration
cross-motions for summary judgment pursuant to
plaintiff's request for review of the decision of the Commissioner
of Social Security ("Commissioner")
denying her application for
supplemental security income ("SS1") under Title XVI of the Social
Security Act
("Act"),
summary judgment
granted,
and
the
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for
(Document No.9)
Commissioner's
be,
and the same hereby is,
motion
for
summary
(Document No. 13) be, and the same hereby is, denied.
will
be
remanded
consistent
with
to
the
this
Commissioner
Memorandum
for
Judgment
further
Order
judgment
The case
proceedings
pursuant
to
sentence 4 of 42 U.S.C. §405(g).
When the
Commissioner determines
that
a
claimant
is not
"disabled" within the meaning of the Act, the findings leading to
such a
conclusion must
"Substantial
evidence
be
has
based upon
substantial
been defined as
'more
evidence.
than a
mere
'%AO 72
(Rev. 8/82)
scintilla.
It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate.'11
(3d Cir. 1999)
Plummer v. Apfel, 186 F.3d 422, 427
(citation omitted) .
Despi te the deference to administrative decisions required by
this
standard,
reviewing
courts
'" retain a
responsibility to
scrutinize the entire record and to reverse or remand if the
[Commissioner's]
evidence.
decision
is
not
supported
by
substantial
Morales v. Apfel, 225 F.3d 310, 317 (3d Cir. 2000),
II'
quoting, Smith v. Califano, 637 F.2d 968, 970 (3d Cir. 1981).
evaluating
findings,
whether
substantial
"'leniency
[should]
evidence
be
shown
supports
in
an
In
ALJ's
establishing
the
claimant's disability, and ... the [Commissioner's] responsibility
to rebut it
[should]
be strictly construed.
,
Barnhart, 326 F.3d 376, 379 (3d Cir. 2003),
~~==~,
v.
1979).
Califano,
606
F.2d 403,
407
(3d Cir.
/I
Reefer v.
Dobrowolsky
These well-
established principles dictate that the court remand this case to
the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this
Memorandum Judgment Order.
Plaintiff filed her application for SSI on April 24, 2008,
alleging disability beginning on October 1, 2005, due to bipolar
disorder,
schizophrenia
application was denied.
hearing on May 17,
problems.
Plaintiff's
At plaintiff's request,
an ALJ held a
and
2010.
stomach
On June 23,
2010,
the ALJ issued a
decision finding that plaintiff is not disabled.
The Appeals
Council denied plaintiff's request for review on June 16, 2011,
making the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Commissioner.
The instant action followed.
~A072
(Rev. 8/82)
- 2
Plaintiff, who has an eleventh grade education, was 36 years
old when the ALJ issued his decision and is classified as
younger individual under the regulations.
a
20 C.F.R. §416.963(c).
Plaintiff does not have any past relevant work experience, and she
has not engaged in substantial gainful activity at any time since
filing her application.
After
reviewing
plaintiff's
medical
testimony from plaintiff at the hearing,
records
and
hearing
the ALJ found that she
suffers from the severe impairments of a hiatal hernia, esophageal
ulcer erosive esophagitis, obesity, major depression, generalized
anxiety disorder and a partner relational problem.
However, the
ALJ determined that plaintiff's impairments, either alone or in
combination,
do not meet or equal the criteria of any of the
listed impairments set forth in Appendix 1 of 20 C.F.R., Subpart
P, Regulation No.4 ("Appendix 111).
The ALJ found that plaintiff retains the residual functional
capacity to perform medium work,
non-exertional
limitations.
but she is limited by certain
Plaintiff
is
limited
to
simple,
routine, repetitive tasks that are not performed in a fast-paced
production environment.
In addition,
she
requires work
that
involves only simple work-related decisions, relatively few work
place changes,
than people.
and work that involves primarily objects rather
Finally,
plaintiff is limited to only occasional
interaction with supervisors and no interaction with co-workers
and the general public (collectively, the "RFC Finding").
Based on testimony by a vocational expert, the ALJ concluded
~A072
(Rev. 8/82)
- 3
that
plaintiff's
vocational
factors
and
residual
functional
capacity permit her to perform work that exists in significant
numbers
in
the
national
economy,
such
as
a
industrial trash collector and equipment washer.
scrap
sorter,
Accordingly, the
ALJ found that plaintiff is not disabled within the meaning of the
Act.
The Act defines "disability" as the inability to engage in
substantial gainful activity by reason of a physical or mental
impairment that can be expected to last for a continuous period of
at
least
twelve
months.
42
U.S.C.
§1382c(a) (3) (A).
The
impairment or impairments must be so severe that the claimant "is
not only unable to do [her] previous work but cannot, considering
[her] age, education and work experience, engage in any other kind
of substantial gainful work which exists in the national
economy .
"
42 U.S.C. §1382c(a) (3) (B).
The Commissioner has promulgated regulations that incorporate
a five-step sequential evaluation process for determining whether
a claimant is disabled.
The ALJ must determine:
(1) whether the
claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activi ty; (2)
if not, whether she has a severe impairment;
(3)
if so, whether
her impairment meets or equals the criteria listed in Appendix 1;
(4)
if not, whether the claimant's impairment prevents her from
performing her past relevant work;
and
(5)
if so,
whether the
claimant can perform any other work that exists in the national
economy,
in light of her age,
residual functional capacity.
education,
20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a) (4).
'%AO 72
(Rev. 8/82)
work experience and
-
4
If the
claimant is found disabled or not disabled at any step, further
inquiry is unnecessary.
Id.
Here, plaintiff challenges the ALJ's decision that she has
the residual functional capacity to perform work that exists in
the national economy on the following grounds:
(1)
substantial
evidence does not support the ALJ's RFC Finding; and,
(2) the ALJ
failed to adequately explain why he found plaintiff's testimony,
and
the
written
statements
entirely credible.
record,
the
court
of
her
husband and children,
not
After reviewing the ALJ's decision and the
finds
that
this
case must
be
remanded for
consideration of the written statements made by plaintiff's family
members and how,
if at all,
ALJ's
of
assessment
her
those statements might affect the
credibility
and
residual
functional
capacity.
Plaintiff submitted written statements by her husband, Robert
Settlemyer,
and
her
daughter
and
son,
in
advance
administrative hearing for consideration by the ALJ.
of
the
Plaintiff's
husband and children stated, inter alia, that she becomes annoyed
easily and she cries frequently, and that it is difficult for her
to go out in public, thus she primarily stays at home.
(R.
168
70) .
Although the ALJ stated in his decision that the statements
of
plaintiff's
impairments
and
husband,
their
daughter
impact
son
concerning
on her ability to work are
'%AO 72
(Rev 8/82)
and
-
5
her
not
entirely
credible, 1
(R.
26),
the
ALJ
failed
to
explanation for that adverse credibility finding.
provide
any
Likewise, the
statements by plaintiff's relatives were not taken into account in
the
ALJ's
analysis
of
plaintiff's
credibility
nor
in
his
assessment of her residual functional capacity.
It is axiomatic in social security cases that, although the
ALJ may weigh the credibility of the evidence, he must give some
indication of the evidence that he rejects and his reasons for
discounting that evidence.
(3d Cir. 2001).
Fargnoli v. Massanari, 247 F.3d 34, 43
Where an ALJ fails to consider and explain his
reasons for discounting all of the relevant evidence before him,
both medical and non-medical, he has not met his responsibilities
under the Act and the case must be remanded.
Burnett v. Apfel,
220 F.3d 112, 122 (3d Cir. 2000)
Here,
the
ALJ
provided
no
explanation
whatsoever
for
rejecting or discounting the written statements of plaintiff's
husband,
daughter and son.
Thus,
it is not possible for this
court to conduct meaningful judicial review of the ALJ's decision
when he failed to offer any reasons for rejecting this evidence.
Although the Commissioner suggests in his brief that the
statements of plaintiff's relatives were out of proportion with
the level of severity supported by the objective evidence, this
IThe ALJ's entire analysis of the written statements provided
by plaintiff's family members consisted of one sentence: "The
statements of the claimant's husband, daughter, and son concerning
the claimant's impairments and their impact on her ability to work
are not entirely credible."
(R.26).
'%AO 72
(Rev. 8/82)
- 6
court can only analyze the ALJ's decision itself and determine if
it is supported by substantial evidence.
An ALJ' s decision cannot
be upheld based on an after-the-fact justification raised by the
Commissioner on judicial review.
Moreover t
the written statements
of
plaintiff's husband,
daughter and son cannot be deemed irrelevant.
explicitly provide
evidence
in
your
determination.
Regulations
that
the
case
Commissioner
record"
in
is
The Regulations
to
making
See 20 C.F.R. §416.920(a) (3).
underscore
the
testimonYI and in particular
l
relevance
consider
of
a
"all
disability
Indeed, numerous
non-medical
source
the testimony of a claimant's spouse
and other relatives, as it relates to a claimant/s impairments and
ability
to
credibilitYt
claimant/s
work,
see
see
20
residual
§416.945(a) (3).
20
C.F.R.
C.F.R.
§416.913 (d) (4)
§§416.929(a)
functional
SSR
and
I
a
(c) (3),
20
capacitYI
96-7p
claimant's
(explaining
that
and
a
C.F.R.
other
sources, including non-medical sources such as family and friends
l
may provide information from which inferences and conclusions can
be drawn about the claimantts credibility).
In addition to the Regulations
I
the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals has emphasized the importance of non-medical testimony
from other sources and has ruled that a case must be remanded to
the Commissioner where the ALJ failed to address t or failed to
explain the rej ection of t non-medical testimony.
See Burnett t 220
F.3d at 122 (on remand, ALJ instructed to consider the testimony
of claimant/s husband and neighbor); Van Horn v. Schweiker, 717
~A072
(Rev, 8182)
7
F.2d 871, 873
medical
(3d Cir. 1983)
witnesses).
As
in
(ALJ must address testimony of non
Burnett
and
Van
Horn,
remand
is
required in this case so that the ALJ can adequately consider the
written statements of plaintiff's family members and explain why
he accepts, rejects or discounts those statements.
Accordingly,
on remand,
the ALJ must specifically consider
the written statements of plaintiff's husband, daughter and son as
those statements relate to plaintiff's impairments, limitations,
credibility and residual functional capacity.
Of course, the ALJ
is not required to accept the written statements of plaintiff's
family members, so long as he properly evaluates that evidence as
he would other relevant evidence and explains the reasons for his
decision to accept, reject or discount those statements.
For the foregoing reasons,
plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment will be granted,
the Commissioner's motion for summary
judgment will be denied,
and this case will be remanded to the
Commissioner
for
further
proceedings
consistent
with
Memorandum Judgment Order.
~~
Gustave Diamond
united States District Judge
cc:
David M. Axinn, Esq.
P.O. Box 597
Hollidaysburg, PA 16648
Stephanie L. Haines
Assistant U.S. Attorney
319 Washington Street
Room 224, Penn Traffic Building
Johnstown, PA 15901
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?