Paxton v. Astrue

Filing 19

OPINION. Signed by Judge James P. Jones on 7/23/12. (sc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ABINGDON DIVISION
TEENA YVONNE PAXTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:11CV00070
OPINION
By: James P. Jones
United States District Judge

John J. Gifford, Browning, Lamie & Gifford, P.C., Abingdon, Virginia, for
Plaintiff. Nora R. Koch, Acting Regional Chief Counsel, Region III, Eda Giusti,
Assistant Regional Counsel, Charles J. Kawas, Special Assistant United States
Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, Social Security Administration,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Defendant.

In this social security disability case, I will remand the case to the
Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) for further consideration.
Teena Yvonne Paxton, the plaintiff in this case, filed her Complaint in this
court seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner denying
her claim for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) pursuant to Title II of the
Social Security Act (the “Act”), 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 401-433 (West 2011 & Supp.
2012). This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. § 405(g). In her
Complaint, Paxton argues that the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) erred in

denying her claim for benefits because the ALJ did not mention or consider the
effects of her alleged mental impairments in his decision. Accordingly, Paxton
requests that the court remand her case to the Commissioner for further
consideration by an ALJ.
Paxton claimed disability due to several physical impairments, posttraumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) and a sleep disorder.1 The treatment records
from several of Paxton’s treating physicians, including Michael T. Fletcher, M.D.,
and Earl K. Wilson, M.D., reflect findings of possible mental impairments,
including PTSD, depression, and panic attacks. During the relevant time period,
Paxton described symptoms such as nausea, extreme fatigue, shortness of breath,
racing heart, palpitations, difficulty sleeping, and problems with concentration.
She was prescribed several different anti-depressant and anti-anxiety medications.
At the administrative hearing, Paxton’s attorney specifically elicited testimony as
to her mental problems. Paxton described her symptoms and her past treatment for
those mental problems.
Despite the fact that the question of whether Paxton has a mental impairment
that could affect her ability to perform substantial gainful activity was clearly
before the ALJ, the ALJ did not include any mention of, much less give
1

Paxton filed her DIB application in July 2007. She alleged disability beginning
December 15, 2001. Because her insured status expired on December 31, 2003, Paxton
had to show that she became disabled on or before this date. See 42 U.S.C.A. § 423; 20
C.F.R. § 404.101 (2012).
-2-

consideration to, Paxton’s alleged mental impairments in his decision. The ALJ’s
decision is completely focused on Paxton’s alleged physical impairments and his
decision that she is not disabled is based only upon his consideration of those
impairments.
Before a court may find that an ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial
evidence, the ALJ’s decision must analyze all the relevant evidence and
sufficiently explain his findings and rationale. See Sterling Smokeless Coal Co. v.
Akers, 131 F.3d 438, 439 (4th Cir. 1997); Arnold v. Sec’y of Health, Educ. &
Welfare, 567 F.2d 258, 259 (4th Cir. 1977). The court faces a difficult task in
applying the substantial evidence test when the ALJ’s opinion does not show that
the ALJ properly considered all of the relevant evidence. See id. In fact, the
Fourth Circuit has held that a reviewing court essentially abdicates its duty to
scrutinize the record as a whole to determine whether the conclusions reached are
rational if it affirms an opinion in which the ALJ has not properly analyzed all the
evidence and sufficiently explained the weight given to it. See id. In other words,
“[a] bald conclusion, unsupported by reasoning or evidence, is generally of no use
to a reviewing court . . . .” Jordan v. Califano, 582 F.2d 1333, 1335 (4th Cir.
1978).
The ALJ’s failure to address Paxton’s alleged mental impairments makes it
impossible for this court to determine whether and to what extent he considered
-3-

those impairments in assessing Paxton’s claim for disability. It is true that Paxton
has never sought mental health treatment and it may be that the ALJ did consider
Paxton’s allegations of mental impairments and determined that they were so mild
as to have no effect on her ability to do work, but without any discussion or
articulated reasoning, this court is unable to adequately review the decision.
For these reasons, I will vacate the final decision of the Commissioner and
remand the case for further consideration of Paxton’s alleged mental impairments.
A separate Order so providing will be entered forthwith.

DATED: July 23, 2012
/s/ James P. Jones
United States District Judge

-4-