Collier v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 19

OPINION. Signed by Judge James P. Jones on 5/4/10. (sc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA B IG STONE GAP DIVISION

JASON R. COLLIER, P la in tif f , v. M IC H A E L J. ASTRUE, C O M M IS S IO N E R OF S O C IA L SECURITY, D e f e n d a n t.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. 2:09CV00045

OPINION By: James P. Jones Chief United States District Judge

Jo sep h E. Wolfe, Wolfe, Williams, Rutherford & Reynolds, Norton, Virginia, fo r Plaintiff; Eric P. Kressman, Regional Chief Counsel, Region III, Donald K. N e ely , Assistant Regional Counsel, and Allyson Joswik, Special Assistant United S ta tes Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, Social Security Administration, P h ila d elp h ia , Pennsylvania, for Defendant. In this social security case, I vacate the final decision of the Commissioner an d remand for further proceedings.

I The plaintiff, Jason R. Collier, filed this action challenging the final d ecisio n of the Commissioner of Social Security, ("Commissioner"), denying his claim s for supplemental security income and child's insurance benefits pursuant to the Social Security Act, ("Act"), 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 401-33, 1381-1383d (West

2 0 0 3 & Supp. 2009). Jurisdiction of this court exists pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. § 4 0 5 (g ) and § 1383(c)(3). Collier protectively filed for benefits in January 2007 alleging disability b e g in n in g at his birth in July 1988, due to a combination of mental and physical im p airm en ts, including a learning disability and asthmatic bronchitis. His claim w a s denied initially and upon reconsideration. Collier had a hearing before an ad m in istrativ e law judge ("ALJ") at which he was present and represented by c o u n s e l. In addition to Collier's testimony, the ALJ heard the testimony of

C o llier's father and a vocational expert ("VE"). The ALJ denied Collier's claim an d the Social Security Administration's Appeals Council denied Collier's req u est for a review of the ALJ's opinion. Collier filed his Complaint with this co u rt, objecting to the Commissioner's final decision. T h e parties have filed cross motions for summary judgment, and have b riefed the issues. The case is ripe for decision.

II C o llier, who was born in 1988, is a person of younger age under the reg u latio n s. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1563(c) (2009). Collier graduated from high sch o o l, where he was enrolled in special education classes. He has no past

-2-

relev an t work.

His employment is limited to working part-time as a janitor

d u rin g the summer while he was in school. As mentioned above, Collier was enrolled in special education classes. In an August 2000 Education Assessment, Collier tested in the low average range f o r reading, mathematics, and writing, the average to high range for listening c o m p r e h e n s io n , and the average to low range for written expression. It was p r e d ic te d that, as his amount of school work increased and became more d ifficu lt, he would struggle to maintain adequate performance. Collier has been diagnosed with Borderline Intellectual Functioning and a learn in g disability. The record reflects that while he adequately completed all sch o o l work, he struggled with the assignments and his success was contingent o n effort greater than the typical student and assistance from his family. Collier w as always found to be pleasant, cooperative, attentive, and to give a good e f f o r t. It was often noted that he did not demonstrate the symptoms of

d ep ressio n or anxiety. However, it was consistently observed that he did not g iv e spontaneous responses. Collier was observed to be able to maintain

relatio n sh ip s and get along with his family and classmates. T h e medical evidence shows that Collier suffered from asthma and back p ain , which ultimately required surgery. He was consistently noted to be on m e d ic atio n s for his asthma, including an inhaler, but the condition was

-3-

c o n tro lled . A magnetic resonance imaging ("MRI") taken in 2007 showed disc p ro tru sio n with extension compressing a descending right S1 root, mild n eu ro fo ram in al narrowing and right S1 radiculopathy. In May 2007 he

u n d erw en t a lumbar laminectomy and discectomy on his right L5-S1. In the m o n th s subsequent to the surgery, he regained his strength, displayed a normal g a it, declined pain medications, and performed a normal straight leg raise. F u r th e r , there was no longer tenderness in the previously affected area. R ev iew in g Collier's medical history, the ALJ found that his organic m en tal disorder/borderline intellectual functioning was a severe impairment, w h ile his physical ailments were not. The ALJ determined that Collier had the r es id u a l functional capacity to perform medium work that is limited to simple, r o u tin e , repetitive, unskilled tasks that do not have production or pace re q u irem en ts. The VE testified that someone with these limitations would be a b le to perform jobs existing in significant numbers in the national and regional eco n o m ies, including a laundry worker or vehicle cleaner. The ALJ agreed and co n clu d ed that Collier was not disabled. su p p o rted by substantial evidence. I agree. Collier argues this decision is not

-4-

I II T h e plaintiff bears the burden of proving that he is suffering from a d isa b ili ty . Blalock v. Richardson, 483 F.2d 773, 775 (4th Cir. 1972). The

stan d ard for disability is strict. The plaintiff must show that his "physical or m en tal impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work ex p erien ce, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in th e national economy . . . ." 42 U.S.C.A. § 423(d)(2)(A). I n assessing claims, the Commissioner applies a five-step sequential e v a lu a tio n process. The Commissioner considers whether the claimant: (1) has w o rk ed during the alleged period of disability; (2) has a severe impairment; (3) h as a condition that meets or equals the severity of a listed impairment; (4) could r e tu r n to his past relevant work; and (5) if not, whether he could perform other w o rk present in the national economy. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4),

4 2 6 .9 2 0 (a)(4 ) (2009). If it is determined at any point in the five-step analysis th at the claimant is not disabled, the inquiry immediately ceases. Id.; Bennett v. S u lliva n , 917 F.2d 157, 159 (4th Cir. 1990). The fourth and fifth steps of the in q u iry require an assessment of the claimant's residual functioning capacity, w h ich is then compared with the physical and mental demands of the claimant's

-5-

p ast relevant work and of other work present in the national economy. R e ic h e n b a c h v. Heckler, 808 F.2d 309, 311 (4th Cir. 1985).

See

In accordance with the Act, I must uphold the ALJ's findings if su b stan tial evidence supports them and they were reached through application of th e correct legal standard. Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir. 1996). S u b stan tial evidence means "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might a cc ep t as adequate to support a conclusion." Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 3 8 9 , 401 (1971) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). This standard "co n sists of more than a mere scintilla of evidence but may be somewhat less th an a preponderance." Laws v. Celebrezze, 368 F.2d 640, 642 (4th Cir. 1966). It is the role of the ALJ to resolve evidentiary conflicts, including in c o n s isten cies in the evidence. Hays v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir. 1 9 9 0 ). It is not the role of this court to substitute its judgment for that of the C o m m issio n er. See Id. In challenging the ALJ's opinion, Collier claims that the ALJ erred by f a ilin g to consider the impact his asthma and back impairment would have on his a b ility to work. In doing so, Collier argues that the ALJ ignored medical

e v id e n c e of record and substituted his opinion for that of trained medical p ro f e s s io n a ls .

-6-

I n determining whether substantial evidence supports the Commissioner=s d ecisio n , the court also must consider whether the ALJ analyzed all of the relev an t evidence and whether the ALJ sufficiently explained his findings and h is rationale in crediting evidence. See Sterling Smokeless Coal Co. v. Akers, 1 3 1 F.3d 438, 439-40 (4th Cir. 1997). C o llie r correctly points out that the ALJ failed to discuss two medical o p in io n s that each included limitations that the ALJ apparently rejected. For the reaso n s that follow, I will vacate the Commissioner's decision and remand for fu rth er proceedings. T h e first is the opinion of Donald Williams, M.D., a state agency p h ysician . Dr. Williams noted that Collier had a primary diagnosis of L-Spine d isc space narrowing and secondarily noted a history of asthmatic bronchitis. D r. Williams found that Collier could lift and carry 50 pounds occasionally and 2 5 pounds frequently, and sit, stand, and walk for six hours out of an eight-hour w o r k d a y . Furthermore, Dr. Williams found that Collier was unlimited in his ab ilities to push and pull, and he did not find any postural, manipulative, visual, o r communicative limitations. A L J's opinion. All of these findings are consistent with the

However, Dr. Williams found that Collier should avoid

co n cen tr ated exposure to wetness, fumes, odors, dusts, gases, poor ventilation, an d other respiratory irritants.

-7-

T h e ALJ did not adopt the environmental limitations, nor did he explain th e ir rejection. Moreover, Dr. Williams did not consider all relevant evidence w h en making his decision. He did not review and consider an MRI taken on M arch 27, 2007. A d d itio n ally, the ALJ failed to discuss the findings of Joseph Duckwell, M .D ., a state agency physician, who also did not review the MRI from March 2 7 , 2007. Like Dr. Williams, Dr. Duckwell opined that Collier should avoid co n cen trated exposure to wetness, fumes, odors, dusts, gases, poor ventilation, an d other respiratory irritants. Differing from Dr. Williams, Dr. Duckwell

in d icated that Collier could only lift and carry 20 pounds frequently and 10 p o u n d s occasionally. In this case, the ALJ evidently overlooked the opinions of two state a g e n c y physicians. The physicians each placed limitations upon Collier, which th e ALJ failed to consider. As such, the court cannot determine if the ALJ's d ecisio n is supported by substantial evidence.

IV F o r the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment w ill be denied, and the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment will be d en ied . The decision of the Commissioner denying benefits will be vacated and

-8-

th e case will be remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings co n sisten t with this Opinion.

D A T E D : May 4, 2010 /s/ James P. Jones Chief United States District Judge

-9-