Brooks v. Berryhill
Filing
16
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered. The Court DENIES Brooks's Motion for SummaryJudgment 13 , and GRANTS Defendant Nancy A. Berryhill's Motion for SummaryJudgment 14 . The decision of the Administrative Law Judge is AFFIRMED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew M Edison) Parties notified. (wbostic, 4)
..
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
July 16, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
GALVESTON DIVISION
EULA FRANCINE BROOKS
Plaintiff.
VS.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, ACTING
COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
David J. Bradley, Clerk
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-CV-00372
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Eula Francine Brooks ("Brooks") seeks judicial revrew of an
administrative decision denying her claims for disability insurance benefits under Title II
of the Social Security Act (the "AcC), 42 U.S.C. § 401 et seq., and for supplemental
security benefits under Title XVI ofthe Act 42 U.S.C. § 1381 et seq.
Before the Court, with the consent of the Parties, are competing Motions for
Summary Judgment filed by Brooks and Defendant, Nancy A. Berryhill, the Acting
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the "Commissioner"). (Dkt. 9).
Having considered the motions, responsive briefing, and applicable law, the Court
DENIES Brooks's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 13), and GRANTS the
Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 14).
Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") is AFFIRMED.
The decision of the
..
I. BACKGROUND
Brooks filed a claim for social security disability benefits and supplemental social
security income benefits under Title II and Title XVI of the Act, alleging disability as of
July 9, 2014.
Brooks's application was initially denied, and denied again upon
reconsideration.
Subsequently, an ALJ held a hearing and found Brooks was not
disabled. Brooks filed an appeal with the Appeals Council. The Appeals Council denied
review, making the ALJ' s decision final. This appeal followed.
II. APPLICABLE LAW
Section 405(g) of the Act governs the standard of review in disability cases. See
Waters v. Barnhart, 276 F.3d 716, 718 (5th Cir. 2002). The Commissioner's decision to
deny social security benefits is reviewed by the federal courts to determine whether ( 1)
the Commissioner applied the proper legal standard, and (2) the Commissioner's factual
findings are supported by substantial evidence. See Estate of Morris v. Shalala, 207 F .3d
744, 745 (5th Cir. 2000). "To be substantial, evidence must be relevant and sufficient for
a reasonable mind to accept as adequate to support a conclusion; it must be more than a
scintilla but it need not be a preponderance." Fraga v. Bowen, 810 F.2d 1296, 1302 (5th
Cir. 1987) (citation omitted).
"Judicial review is to be deferential without being so
obsequious as to be meaningless."
Taylor v. Bowen, 782 F.2d 1294, 1298 (5th Cir.
1986).
"[A] claimant is disabled only if she is incapable of engaging in any substantial
gainful activity."
Anthony v. Sullivan, 954 F.2d 289, 293 (5th Cir. 1992) (citation,
quotation marks, and emphasis omitted).
2
To determine if a claimant 1s disabled, the ALJ uses a sequential, five-step
approach:
( 1) whether the claimant is presently performing substantial gainful
activity; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment; (3) whether the
impairment meets or equals a listed impairment; (4) whether the
impairment prevents the claimant from doing past relevant work; and (5)
whether the impairment prevents the claimant from performing any other
substantial gainful activity.
Salmond v. Berryhill, 892 F.3d 812, 817 (5th Cir. 2018) (quoting Kneeland v. Berryhill,
850 F.3d 749, 753 (5th Cir. 2017)).
"The claimant bears the burden of proof on the first four steps, but the
Commissioner bears the burden on the fifth step.'' Salmond, 892 F.3d at 817 (citation
omitted). "Before reaching step four, the Commissioner assesses the claimant's residual
functional capacity ('RFC'). The claimant's RFC assessment is a determination of the
most the claimant can still do despite his or her physical and mental limitations and is
based on all relevant evidence in the claimant's record. The RFC is used in both step
four and step five to determine whether the claimant is able to do her past work or other
available work." Kneeland, 850 F.3d at 754 (citations and internal quotation marks
omitted).
The Commissioner's decision must stand or fall with the reasons stated in the
ALJ's final decision. See Newton v. Apfel, 209 F.3d 448, 455 (5th Cir. 2000). Post hoc
rationalizations for an agency decision are not to be considered by a reviewing court. See
SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 196 ( 194 7). "The reviewing court may not reweigh
the evidence, try the questions de novo, or substitute its judgment for the
3
Commissioner's, even if it believes the evidence weighs against the Commissioner's
decision. Conflicts in the evidence are for the Commissioner, not the courts, to resolve."
Pennington v. Comm'r ofSoc. Sec. Admin., No. 3:16-CV-230, 2017 WL 4351756, at *1
(S.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2017) (citing Masterson v. Barnhart, 309 F.3d 267, 272 (5th Cir.
2002)).
III. THE ALJ'S DECISION
The ALJ found at step one that Brooks had not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since July 9, 2014.
The ALJ found at step two that Brooks had the following severe impairments:
sarcoidosis, left rotator cuff tear, and obesity.
At step three, the ALJ found that none of these impairments met any of the Social
Security Administration's (the "Agency") listed impairments.
Prior to consideration of step four, the ALJ assessed Brooks's RFC, as follows:
5. .\flu clln'fu.l co•iclention of the c:adn n-runl. dw uadeniiDI'd flnds tlmt thr
cWmaot bas dw rnklual funrtlonal capacity tn pt"ri'onn tbt: ful ranar of light work 1115
detlnf'd in lfl Ct'R 44t4.1567(b) and -416.967(b)nct'pt 5he can perfonn ovrrhelld ntachmJt
and handline -..·itlllht> ~ft ann. Tile tlaimanl also can perfoma the full~ ofsetlentary
....
(Dkt. 7-3 at 27). At step four, the ALJ determined that Brooks "is capable of performing
past relevant work as a laboratory technician" and such "work does not require the
performance of work related activities precluded by [her RFC]." (Id. at 31).
At step 5, presumably out of an abundance of caution, the ALJ considered
Brooks's RFC, age, education, and work experience in conjunction with the Medical
Vocational Guidelines to determine if there was any other work she can do. At the time
4
of the ALJ's hearing, Brooks was 45 years old, with a high school education, and had
previously worked as a laboratory technician. Based on the relevant factors, the ALJ
concluded "a finding of 'not disabled"' was required because there were jobs that existed
in significant numbers in the national economy that Brooks could still do.
(ld. at 32).
Accordingly, the ALJ determined that Brooks was not disabled under the Act and was not
entitled to benefits.
IV. DISCUSSION
In this appeal, Brooks asserts three arguments. First, Brooks argues that the ALJ
failed to fully develop the medical record. Next, Brooks argues that the ALJ committed
error when he found that her subjective complaints about the severity and extent of her
physical limitations caused by back pain were not credible. Lastly, Brooks argues that
the ALJ's RFC determination is not supported by substantial evidence because it is
unsupported by any medical opinion in the record. The Court addresses each argument in
tum.
A.
DUTY TO FULLY AND FAIRLY DEVELOP THE RECORD
Brooks contends that the ALJ should have sought out certain unproduced medical
records that would have supported her claim, including additional records from her
treating physician Robert Beach, M.D. ("Dr. Beach") and records related to her mental
health treatment and treatment for sarcoidosis at St. Vincent Clinic.
In other words,
Brooks interprets the ALJ' s duty as one requiring the ALJ to seek out medical records
that would substantiate any impairment/treatment mentioned in another medical record or
mentioned in her testimony before the ALJ, while at the same time relieving her of any
5
obligation to provide those records. For the reasons explained below, this interpretation
is untenable and misguided.
Legal Standard: "The ALJ owes a duty to a claimant to develop the record fully
and fairly to ensure that his decision is an informed decision based on sufficient facts."
Brock v. Chater, 84 F.3d 726, 728 (5th Cir. 1996). "Generally, however, the duty to
obtain medical records is on the claimant." Gonzalez v. Barnhart, 51 F. App'x 484, at *1
(5th Cir. 2002) (citing Thornton v. Schweiker, 663 F.2d 1312, 1316 (5th Cir. 1981)). An
ALJ does not have the duty "to obtain all of a claimant's medical records before reaching
a decision." Sun v. Colvin, 793 F.3d 502, 509 (5th Cir. 2015). "[The 5th Circuit] has
described the ALJ's duty as one of developing all relevant facts, not collecting all
existing records." !d. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, "the Court
. . . focuses on the ALJ' s questioning of the claimant in order to determine whether the
ALJ gathered the information necessary to make a disability determination."
!d.
(collecting cases).
A "court may reverse the ALJ' s decision if the claimant can show that (1) the ALJ
failed to fulfill his duty to develop the record adequately and (2) that failure prejudiced
the plaintiff." !d. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)
Additional Records of Dr. Beach, Brooks's Treating Physician: Dr. Beach
completed a Residual Functional Capacity Questionnaire ("RFCQ") on December 17,
2016. In the RFCQ, Dr. Beach noted that he had been treating Brooks for eight months
for sarcoidosis and arthritis, and Brook's symptoms included dyspnea on exertion, cough,
and arthralgia. Based on these diagnoses, Dr. Beach indicated that Brooks's symptoms
6
would often interfere with her attention and concentration when performing work related
tasks, and that, in an eight hour work day, Brooks would need to recline or lie down in
excess of the normal break periods typically associated with a full-time position. Dr.
Beach then described the following functional limitations:
8.
As a result ol YOQt parie.nt's impairmeats. please estimate your paticnt•s1imc:tionaJI.imitltiOD$~·
your p;llimt were placed ma competitive wodc simalion 011 aD ongoing be.lis:
a. How many~· blocb can yourpatiout walk without rest or sipific.mt pain? 1-- lb. Please citcle tbc number of minutos that your patieat can sit and staDdlwaDt at_ooo..;.....,time_:~j...,__
Sli: 0 5 to IS 20 ~ 45 60
c.
SIANQfWALK: 0 ~ 10 IS 20
:m
45 60l
Please iwlicate the total number of haws yourpaliem can sit and stalldlwalk in an 3-bour
worlcday:
1 fj) 3 • s 6 1 s
~~: o6)2 3 • .s 6 1 s [
d. l)oc$ your patioDt neod a job which permits sbift:ina positions at will from sittiaa, stan
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?