Horton v. Commissioner Of Social Security

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Magistrate Judge Pamela Meade Sargent on 10/05/2017. (Bordwine, Robin)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
BIG STONE GAP DIVISION
CODY NELSON HORTON,
Plaintiff
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,1
Acting Commissioner of
Social Security,
Defendant

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 2:16cv00020
MEMORANDUM OPINION

By: PAMELA MEADE SARGENT
United States Magistrate Judge

I. Background and Standard of Review
Plaintiff, Cody Nelson Horton, (“Horton”), filed this action challenging the
final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, (“Commissioner”), denying
his claim for child’s insurance benefits based on disability, (“CDIB”), and
supplemental security income, (“SSI”), benefits under Title XVI of the Social
Security Act, as amended, (“Act”), 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 402(d), 1381-1383d. (West 2011
& West 2012 & Supp. 2017). Jurisdiction of this court is pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§
405(g) and 1383(c)(3). This case is before the undersigned magistrate judge upon
transfer by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). Neither party
has requested oral argument; therefore, this case is ripe for decision.
The court’s review in this case is limited to determining if the factual findings
of the Commissioner are supported by substantial evidence and were reached
1

Nancy A. Berryhill became the Acting Commissioner of Social Security on January 23,
2017. Berryhill is substituted for Carolyn W. Colvin, the previous Acting Commissioner of Social
Security.
-1-

through application of the correct legal standards. See Coffman v. Bowen, 829 F.2d
514, 517 (4th Cir. 1987). Substantial evidence has been defined as “evidence which a
reasoning mind would accept as sufficient to support a particular conclusion. It
consists of more than a mere scintilla of evidence but may be somewhat less than a
preponderance.” Laws v. Celebrezze, 368 F.2d 640, 642 (4th Cir. 1966). “‘If there
is evidence to justify a refusal to direct a verdict were the case before a jury, then
there is “substantial evidence.”’” Hays v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir.
1990) (quoting Laws, 368 F.2d at 642).
The record shows that Horton protectively filed his applications for CDIB and
SSI 2 on December 5, 2011, alleging disability as of October 15, 2011, due to
scoliosis, club foot, cleft palate and learning difficulties. (Record, (“R.”), at 224-27,
234-35, 247, 251.) The claims were denied initially and upon reconsideration. (R. at
121-23, 127-29, 132-34, 138-40, 143-44, 146, 148-50, 152-57, 159-61.) Horton then
requested a hearing before an ALJ. (R. at 162-63, 183-84.) The ALJ held a video
hearing on February 23, 2015, at which Horton was represented by counsel. (R. at
28-58.)
By decision dated March 31, 2015, the ALJ denied Horton’s claims. (R. at
13-23.) The ALJ found that Horton was born in 1992, and, therefore, had not
2

Horton filed initial applications for CDIB and SSI on October 22, 2009, and August 21,
2010, alleging disability beginning in January 1992, on the date of his birth. (R. at 62.) The claims
were denied initially and upon reconsideration. (R. at 62.) Horton then requested a hearing before
an administrative law judge, (“ALJ”), and a video hearing was held on October 12, 2011. (R. at
62.) Horton was not represented by counsel at this hearing. (R. at 62.) By decision dated October
14, 2011, the ALJ denied Horton’s claims. (R. at 62-69.) I find that the prior 2011 decision is res
judicata with regard to the period before October 14, 2011. In the 2015 decision, the ALJ noted
that he reviewed the previous ALJ’s October 14, 2011, decision. (R. at 13.)
-2-

attained age 22 as of October 15, 2011, the alleged onset date. (R. at 16.) The ALJ
found that Horton had not performed any substantial gainful activity since October
15, 2011, the alleged onset date. (R. at 16.) The ALJ found that the medical evidence
established that Horton suffered from severe impairments, namely scoliosis;
bilateral club foot; obesity; Perthes disease 3 of the right hip; diabetes mellitus; high
blood pressure; and status-post back surgery with rod placement, but he found that
Horton did not have an impairment or combination of impairments listed at or
medically equal to one listed at 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. (R. at
16.) The ALJ found that Horton had the residual functional capacity to perform
sedentary work 4 that did not require kneeling, crawling or climbing; that allowed for
occasional stooping and crouching; that allowed him to alternately sit and stand at
his workstation one to two times between scheduled breaks for a few minutes each
time; that allowed only frequent handling and fingering; and that allowed the use of
a cane to ambulate 100 feet or more. (R. at 17.) The ALJ stated that he gave the 2011
residual functional capacity assessment limiting Horton to light work some weight
to the extent the findings of Horton’s physical limitations and restrictions were
somewhat more restrictive than was determined. (R. at 13.) The ALJ found that new
and material evidence supported the additional limitations as found in the 2015
decision. (R. at 13.) The ALJ found that Horton had no past relevant work. (R. at 21.)
Based on Horton’s age, education, work history and residual functional capacity and
3

Perthes disease is defined as osteochondrosis localized in the upper end of the femur. See
STEDMAN’S MEDICAL DICTIONARY, (“Stedman’s”), 588, 627 (1995).
4

Sedentary work involves lifting no more than 10 pounds at a time and occasionally lifting
or carrying items like docket files, ledgers and small tools. Although a sedentary job is defined as
one which involves sitting, a certain amount of walking and standing is often necessary in carrying
out job duties. Jobs are sedentary if walking and standing are required occasionally and other
sedentary criteria are met. See 20 C.F.R. §§404.1567(a), 416.967(a) (2017).
-3-

the testimony of a vocational expert, the ALJ found that a significant number of jobs
existed in the national economy that Horton could perform, including jobs as an
assembler, a cuff folder and a weight tester. (R. at 21-22.) Therefore, the ALJ
concluded that Horton was not under a disability as defined by the Act and was not
eligible for CDIB or SSI benefits. (R. at 22-23.) See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.350(a)(5),
404.1520(g), 416.920(g) (2017); see also 42 U.S.C.A. § 1382c(a)(3)(A)-(B) .
After the ALJ issued his decision, Horton pursued his administrative appeals,
(R. at 8-9), but the Appeals Council denied his request for review. (R. at 1-5.) Horton
then filed this action seeking review of the ALJ’s unfavorable decision, which now
stands as the Commissioner’s final decision. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.981, 416.1481
(2017). The case is before this court on Horton’s motion for summary judgment filed
January 20, 2017, and the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment filed
March 16, 2017.
II. Facts
Horton was born in 1992, (R. at 224, 234), which classifies him as a “younger
person” under 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1563(c), 416.963(c). He has a high school education
and no past work experience. (R. at 252.) He reported that he did not attend special
education classes. (R. at 252.) Horton stated that he received disability benefits as a
child, but the benefits ceased when he attained age 18. (R. at 36-37, 77.) He stated
that he watched movies and read books. (R. at 37.) Horton stated that he helped dust
“a little bit,” but his father performed the remaining household duties. (R. at 37-38.)
He stated that he had attempted to obtain his driver’s license on three occasions, but
failed the test each time. (R. at 38.) Horton stated that he had trouble understanding
-4-

and reading the test. (R. at 50.) He stated that he took over-the-counter ibuprofen for
his pain because he had no insurance to purchase prescription pain medication. (R. at
38.) He stated that he was unable to lift items from a table in front of him that
weighed more than 15 pounds; bend and lift items from the floor that weighed more
than 10 pounds; walk more than 25 minutes without a cane; stand more than 15
minutes without interruption; or sit more than 20 minutes without interruption. (R. at
39, 41, 44.) Horton stated that he occasionally walked for exercise. (R. at 39.) He
stated that he used a cane to help ease the pain on his right side. (R. at 40.)
Asheley Wells, a vocational expert, was present and testified at Horton’s
hearing. (R. at 53-57.) Wells was asked to consider a hypothetical individual who
was in the age group of late teens to age 23, who had a high school education and no
work history, who was limited to sedentary work that did not require kneeling,
crawling or climbing, that did not require more than occasional stooping or
crouching, that did not require more than frequent bilateral handling and fingering
and that allowed the individual to alternate between sitting and standing, giving the
individual the opportunity to do so at their workstation one to two times between
scheduled breaks. (R. at 53.) Wells stated that the individual could perform jobs that
were available existing in significant numbers in the national economy, including
those of an assembler, a cuff folder and a weight tester. (R. at 53-54.) Wells stated
that the individual could do these jobs should he be required to use a cane or assistive
device to ambulate more than 100 feet. (R. at 54.)
Wells was asked to consider the same individual, but who would be limited as
indicated by Dr. Michael’s assessment. (R. at 54.) In particular, Wells was asked to
consider an individual who could stand and walk for less than two hours in an
-5-

eight-hour workday, sit for at least six hours in an eight-hour workday and
occasionally lift items weighing up to 10 pounds. (R. at 54.) She stated that, although
the jobs cited did not require very much walking, all competitive employment would
be precluded if the number of work hours totaled less than eight hours. (R. at 54-55.)
She stated that, if the person could sit for up to eight hours, he could perform the
previously identified jobs. (R. at 55.) Wells stated that the jobs cited required
frequent lifting and handling of objects that did not weigh much and allowed a
sit/stand option at the individual’s work station. (R. at 55-56.) She stated that there
would be no jobs available that such an individual could perform should he be
incapable of maintaining concentration to perform simple tasks. (R. at 56-57.)
In rendering his decision, the ALJ reviewed records from Stephen P. Saxby,
Ph.D., a state agency psychologist; Dr. Lewis Singer, M.D., a state agency
physician; Jeanne Buyck, Ph.D., a state agency psychologist; Dr. J. Astruc, M.D., a
state agency physician; Dr. Kevin Blackwell, D.O.; Dr. Gary E. Michael, M.D.;
Shriners Hospitals for Children; Holston Medical Group; Clinch River Health
Services, Inc.; and Dr. Ashok V. Mehta, M.D. Horton’s attorney also submitted
additional medical records from Clinch River Health Services to the Appeals
Council.5
The record shows that Horton was admitted to the Shriners Hospitals for
Children for bilateral postero-medial releases; bilateral ankle medial malleolar
5

Since the Appeals Council considered and incorporated this additional evidence into the
record in reaching its decision, (R. at 1-5), this court must also take these new findings into account
when determining whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s findings. See Wilkins v. Sec'y
of Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 953 F.2d 93, 96 (4th Cir. 1991).
-6-

screw placement; a spinal fusion; and removal of medial malleolar hardware from
both ankles resulting from club foot and scoliosis. (R. at 415-23.) In October 2007,
x-rays of Horton’s pelvis showed mild flattening of the femoral heads bilaterally;
residual previous Legg-Perthes disease; the femoral heads were directed towards the
socket of the hipbone bilaterally; and no evidence of acute abnormality. (R. at 425.)
X-rays of Horton’s thoracolumbar spine showed hardware present, intact and
without evidence for complication. (R. at 426.) X-rays of Horton’s ankles showed
irregularity of the talar dome, 6 particularly on the left, and several degrees of ankle
valgus on the left. (R. at 424.) In October 2009, Horton complained of bilateral hip
pain and low back pain. (R. at 406, 410.) It was noted that Horton ambulated with a
reciprocating heel-to-toe gait with a fat-thigh type gait. (R. at 406.) Horton had
approximately 20 to 30 degrees of external foot progression. (R. at 406.) On
examination, Horton’s left hip had virtually no internal rotation and approximately
30 degrees of external rotation with fairly good abduction. (R. at 406.) He reported
that his pain was “fairly tolerable.” (R. at 406.)
On November 18, 2007, Dr. Kevin Blackwell, D.O., examined Horton at the
request of Disability Determination Services. (R. at 300-04.) Horton reported that he
had difficulty “keeping up with his gait,” which caused him to stumble and, at times,
fall. (R. at 301.) Horton stated that he did well at school educationally. (R. at
301-02.) Dr. Blackwell noted that Horton’s gait was unsteady, and he walked with
everted ankles. (R. at 303.) Horton’s back was tender along the paraspinal muscles
with no muscle spasm. (R. at 303.) Dr. Blackwell diagnosed cleft palate deformity;
6

A talar dome lesion is an injury to the cartilage and underlying bone of the talus within
the ankle joint. It is also called an osteochondral defect or osteochondral lesion of the talus. See
Foot Health Facts, Talar Dome Lesion, https://www.foothealthfacts.org/conditions/talar-domelesion (last visited Oct. 5, 2017).
-7-

foot deformity, club feet status-post surgery; history of scoliosis; and elevated blood
pressure. (R. at 303.) Dr. Blackwell opined that Horton could stand for up to two
hours in an eight-hour workday with normal positional changes; sit for up to eight
hours in an eight-hour workday with normal positional changes; he could not squat,
kneel, crawl, climb ladders or stairs or perform repetitive foot activities; he could lift
items weighing up to 35 pounds and frequently lift items weighing up to 10 pounds;
he had no limitations of hand usage or above head reaching; and he could bend and
stoop up to one-third of the day. (R. at 304.)
The record shows that Horton received treatment from Clinch River Health
Services, Inc., (“Clinch River”), from October 2011 to April 2015 for diabetes
mellitus, type II; hyperlipidemia; muscle spasm; dentition; bronchitis; sinusitis;
upper respiratory infection; low back pain; allergic rhinitis; croup; acute
bronchospasm; and bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. (R. at 324-46, 429-36, 445-69,
472-502, 505.) During this time, Horton reported that he occasionally exercised, and
diet and exercise counseling was provided. (R. at 330, 332-34, 336, 339, 344-45,
454-55, 458, 461, 463, 466, 478, 480, 482, 484, 487, 489, 492.) Examinations
showed right lumbar spasm, neck spasm and tenderness and a trace of edema. (R. at
328, 452, 455, 459, 467, 474, 478, 481, 485, 493.) On various office visits, the lower
extremity amputation prevention, (“LEAP”), test was performed, which showed no
foot ulcers; abnormal shape; toe deformity; swelling; or muscle weakness. (R. at
331, 342, 430, 452, 478.) However, in September 2014, Dr. Gary E. Michael, M.D.,
a physician with Clinch River, noted that examination of Horton’s feet showed a toe
deformity. (R. at 455, 481.)
On May 3, 2014, Dr. Michael completed a Physical Residual Functional
-8-

Capacity Questionnaire, indicating that Horton had a diagnosis of right-sided
Perthes disease; scoliosis with posterior spinal fusion; bilateral club foot status-post
postero-medial release; bilateral ankle valgus with medial malleolar screws; and
diabetes. (R. at 437-41.) He stated Horton had limited range of motion of his back,
hip and ankles. (R. at 437.) Dr. Michael reported that emotional factors did not
contribute to the severity of Horton’s symptoms and functional limitations. (R. at
438.) He reported that Horton’s pain and other symptoms were severe enough to
frequently interfere with his ability for attention and concentration needed to
perform simple work tasks. (R. at 438.) Dr. Michael reported that Horton could
tolerate only low-stress jobs. (R. at 438.) He opined that Horton was capable of
walking less than one city block without rest or severe pain; that he could sit for up
to six hours in an eight-hour workday and that he could do so for up to two hours
without interruption; that he could stand for up to 30 minutes without interruption;
that he could stand and/or walk less than two hours in an eight-hour workday; that he
would need to have the ability to walk every 90 minutes for up to 10 minutes; and
that he needed a job that allowed him to shift positions at will from sitting, standing
or walking. (R. at 438-39.) He reported that Horton did not need to take unscheduled
breaks; did not need to elevate his legs with prolonged sitting; and did not need to
use a cane or other assistive device. (R. at 439.) Dr. Michael opined that Horton
could rarely lift and carry items weighing 20 pounds and occasionally lift and carry
items weighing up to 10 pounds. (R. at 439.) He found that Horton could
occasionally look down, turn his head right or left, look up and hold his head in a
static position; occasionally stoop and climb stairs; rarely twist, crouch or squat; and
never climb ladders. (R. at 440.) Dr. Michael noted that Horton had no limitations
with reaching, handling or fingering. (R. at 440.)
-9-

In September 2014, an x-ray of Horton’s lumbar spine showed moderate to
severe scoliosis of the thoracolumbar spine; multiple vertebral body anomalies
about the thoraco-lumbar junction were present; disc space narrowing at the L3-L4
and L4-L5 levels; spondylotic spur formation throughout the lumbar spine, most
prominent on the right at L4-L5; and spinal fixation involving thoracolumbar
scoliosis was noted. (R. at 443.) In April 2015, Horton complained of paresthesias in
his hands and tingling in his right hand. (R. at 473.) Horton had a positive Tinel’s
sign and Phalen’s sign, the right greater than the left. (R. at 474.) Dr. Michael
diagnosed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. (R. at 475.) Dr. Michael instructed
Horton to avoid repetitive motions and strains across his wrists and hands. (R. at
475.)
On September 19, 2013, Stephen P. Saxby, Ph.D., a state agency
psychologist, completed a Psychiatric Review Technique form, (“PRTF”),
indicating that record did not establish a mental impairment. (R. at 78-79.) Saxby
noted that Horton alleged that he was a “slow learner,” but the record failed to show
a diagnosis or past medical history or any incidental evidence of any learning
impairment. (R. at 78.) It was noted that Horton had adequate social functioning and
no severe symptoms of depression, such as crying spells or avoiding others. (R. at
78.)
On September 19, 2013, Dr. Lewis Singer, M.D., a state agency physician,
opined that Horton had the residual functional capacity to occasionally lift and carry
items weighing 20 pounds and frequently lift and carry items weighing 10 pounds,
stand and/or walk four hours in an eight-hour workday and sit up to six hours in an
eight-hour workday. (R. at 80.) He found that Horton was limited in his ability to
-10-

push and pull with both lower extremities. (R. at 80.) Dr. Singer found that Horton
could occasionally use foot controls. (R. at 80.) He found that Horton could
occasionally climb, balance, stoop, kneel, crouch and crawl. (R. at 80-81.) No
manipulative, visual, communicative or environmental limitations were noted. (R. at
81.)
On November 7, 2013, Jeanne Buyck, Ph.D., a state agency psychologist,
completed a PRTF, indicating that the record did not establish a mental impairment.
(R. at 101.) Buyck noted that Horton alleged that he was a “slow learner,” but the
record failed to show a diagnosis or past medical history or any incidental evidence
of any learning impairment. (R. at 101.) It was noted that Horton had adequate social
functioning and no severe symptoms of depression, such as crying spells or avoiding
others. (R. at 101.)
On November 8, 2013, Dr. J. Astruc, M.D., a state agency physician, opined
that Horton had the residual functional capacity to occasionally lift and carry items
weighing 20 pounds and frequently lift and carry items weighing 10 pounds, stand
and/or walk two hours in an eight-hour workday and sit up to six hours in an
eight-hour workday. (R. at 102-04.) He found that Horton was limited in his ability
to push and pull with both lower extremities. (R. at 103.) Dr. Astruc found that
Horton could occasionally use foot controls. (R. at 103.) He found that Horton could
occasionally climb, balance, stoop, kneel, crouch and crawl. (R. at 103.) No
manipulative, visual, communicative or environmental limitations were noted. (R. at
103.)

-11-

III. Analysis
The Commissioner uses a five-step process in evaluating DIB and SSI
claims. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920 (2017). See also Heckler v. Campbell,
461 U.S. 458, 460-62 (1983); Hall v. Harris, 658 F.2d 260, 264-65 (4th Cir. 1981).
This process requires the Commissioner to consider, in order, whether a claimant 1)
is working; 2) has a severe impairment; 3) has an impairment that meets or equals
the requirements of a listed impairment; 4) can return to his past relevant work; and
5) if not, whether he can perform other work. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920.
If the Commissioner finds conclusively that a claimant is or is not disabled at any
point in this process, review does not proceed to the next step. See 20 C.F.R. §§
404.1520(a), 416.920(a) (2017).
As stated above, the court’s function in this case is limited to determining
whether substantial evidence exists in the record to support the ALJ’s findings. The
court must not weigh the evidence, as this court lacks authority to substitute its
judgment for that of the Commissioner, provided her decision is supported by
substantial evidence. See Hays, 907 F.2d at 1456. In determining whether substantial
evidence supports the Commissioner’s decision, the court also must consider
whether the ALJ analyzed all of the relevant evidence and whether the ALJ
sufficiently explained his findings and his rationale in crediting evidence. See
Sterling Smokeless Coal Co. v. Akers, 131 F.3d 438, 439-40 (4th Cir. 1997).
In his brief, Horton argues that the ALJ failed to properly evaluate the opinion
of his treating physician, Dr. Michael. (Plaintiff’s Brief In Support Of Motion For
Summary Judgment, (“Plaintiff’s Brief”), at 6-10.) Horton also argues that the ALJ
-12-

failed to properly and fully consider the previous ALJ’s decision dated October 14,
2011. (Plaintiff’s Brief at 10-12.) In particular, Horton argues that the ALJ failed to
address the evidence that supported an improvement in his ability to sit. (Plaintiff’s
Brief at 11.)
Horton argues that the ALJ erred by failing to properly evaluate the opinion of
his treating physician, Dr. Michael, and that he failed to properly and fully consider
the previous ALJ’s decision. (Plaintiff’s Brief at 6-12.) It is the ALJ’s responsibility
to weigh the evidence, including the medical evidence, in order to resolve any
conflicts which might appear therein. See Hays, 907 F.2d at 1456; Taylor v.
Weinberger, 528 F.2d 1153, 1156 (4th Cir. 1975). Furthermore, while an ALJ may
not reject medical evidence for no reason or for the wrong reason, see King v.
Califano, 615 F.2d 1018, 1020 (4th Cir. 1980), an ALJ may, under the regulations,
assign no or little weight to a medical opinion, even one from a treating source,
based on the factors set forth at 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c), if he
sufficiently explains his rationale and if the record supports his findings. Based on
my review of the record, I do not find that substantial evidence exists to support the
ALJ’s weighing of the evidence, nor do I find that the ALJ gave appropriate weight
to the previous ALJ’s decision as required by Social Security Acquiescence Ruling
00-1(4), (“AR 00-1(4)”).
The ALJ stated that he was giving Dr. Michael’s opinion “some weight
insofar as it generally reflects some deterioration as of the date of his assessment.”
(R. at 20.) The ALJ also noted that Dr. Michael’s treatment notes did not fully reflect
such worsening. (R. at 20.) The record shows that in 2004 and 2005 Horton had
bilateral postero-medial releases; bilateral ankle medial malleolar screw placement;
a spinal fusion; and removal of medial malleolar hardware from both ankles
-13-

resulting from club foot and scoliosis. (R. at 353-54, 359, 415-23.) In 2007, x-rays of
Horton’s ankles showed irregularity of the talar domes and several degrees of ankle
valgus on the left. (R. at 424.) X-rays of Horton’s pelvis showed mild flattening of
the femoral heads bilaterally. (R. at 425.) Dr. Blackwell noted in 2007 that Horton’s
gait was unsteady, and he walked with everted ankles. (R. at 303.) He found that
Horton could not perform repetitive foot activities. (R. at 304.)
In 2013, the state agency physicians found that Horton had the residual
functional capacity to perform light work with postural limitations. (R. at 80-81,
102-03.) The state agency physicians also found that Horton was limited in his
ability to push and pull with both lower extremities, which allowed for only
occasional use of foot controls. (R. at 80, 103.) The ALJ noted in his decision that
the state agency physicians found that Horton could perform a “range of sedentary
exertional work with occasional postural limitations.” (R. at 20.) The ALJ stated that
he was giving “some weight” to the state agency physicians’ opinions to the “extent
the claimant is limited to sedentary work.” (R. at 20.) The ALJ failed to mention the
additional limitation on Horton’s ability to push and pull with both lower
extremities. (R. at 20.)
In the ALJ’s prior decision, the ALJ found that Horton could not stand or walk
for more than six hours in an eight-hour workday; sit more than two hours of an
eight-hour workday; could not perform more than frequent operation of bilateral
foot controls; only occasionally climb ramps or stairs, but never climb ladders, ropes
or scaffolding; could only occasionally balance, stoop, kneel, crouch or crawl; could
only frequently reach overhead or bilaterally handle or feel; and could not work
around unprotected heights or dangerous machinery. (R. at 66.)

-14-

In accordance with AR 00-1(4), “[w]hen adjudicating a subsequent disability
claim arising under the same…title of the Act as the prior claim, an adjudicator
determining whether a claimant is disabled during a previously unadjudicated period
must consider such a prior finding as evidence and give it appropriate weight in light
of all relevant facts and circumstances. In determining the weight to be given such a
prior finding, an adjudicator will consider such factors as: (1) whether the fact on
which the prior finding was based is subject to change with the passage of time, such
as a fact relating to the severity of a claimant's medical condition; (2) the likelihood
of such a change, considering the length of time that has elapsed between the period
previously adjudicated and the period being adjudicated in the subsequent claim;
and (3) the extent that evidence not considered in the final decision on the prior
claim provides a basis for making a different finding with respect to the period being
adjudicated in the subsequent claim.” See also Albright v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.
Admin., 174 F.3d 473 (4th Cir. 1999).
The ALJ in this case noted that he reviewed the previous ALJ’s October 14,
2011, decision. (R. at 13.) The ALJ stated that he gave the residual functional
capacity assessment, limiting Horton to light work, some weight to the extent the
findings of Horton’s physical limitations and restrictions were somewhat more
restrictive than was determined. (R. at 13.) The ALJ found that new and material
evidence supported the additional limitations as found in the 2015 decision. (R. at
13.) While a step-by-step explanation is not required for an ALJ to comply with AR
00-1(4), an ALJ’s written decision must provide an explanation for discrediting or
failing to adopt past administrative findings favorable to the claimant. See Grant v.
Colvin, 2014 WL 852080, at *7 (E.D. Va. Mar. 4, 2014). The ALJ has a duty to
resolve conflicts within the record and provide the claimant with a justification for
the resolution. See Kasey v. Sullivan, 3 F.3d 75, 79 (4th Cir. 1993). Since the ALJ
-15-

failed to mention the discrepancy in Horton’s ability to sit and the limitations
identified on his ability to use his bilateral lower extremities, I cannot find that
substantial evidence exists to support the ALJ’s residual functional capacity finding.
As noted above, the ALJ also failed to mention the limitation on Horton’s
ability to push and pull with both lower extremities found by the state agency
physicians, nor did he mention Dr. Blackwell’s finding that Horton could not
perform repetitive foot activities. It is well-settled that, in determining whether
substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision, the court must consider whether
the ALJ analyzed all of the relevant evidence and whether the ALJ sufficiently
explained his findings and his rationale in crediting evidence. See Sterling
Smokeless Coal Co., 131 F.3d at 439-40. “[T]he [Commissioner] must indicate
explicitly that all relevant evidence has been weighed and its weight.” Stawls v.
Califano, 596 F.2d 1209, 1213 (4th Cir. 1979). “The courts … face a difficult task in
applying the substantial evidence test when the [Commissioner] has not considered
all relevant evidence. Unless the [Commissioner] has analyzed all evidence and has
sufficiently explained the weight he has given to obviously probative exhibits, to say
that his decision is supported by substantial evidence approaches an abdication of
the court’s ‘duty to scrutinize the record as a whole to determine whether the
conclusions reached are rational.’” Arnold v. Sec’y of Health, Educ. & Welfare, 567
F.2d 258, 259 (4th Cir. 1977) (quoting Oppenheim v. Finch, 495 F.2d 396, 397 (4th
Cir. 1974)). Thus, I do not find that substantial evidence exists to support the ALJ’s
finding with regard to Horton’s residual functional capacity.
Therefore, I also find that substantial evidence does not exist in the record to
support the ALJ’s decision that Horton was not disabled. An appropriate Order and
Judgment will be entered remanding this case to the Commissioner for further
-16-

consideration.
DATED:

October 5, 2017.
s/

Pamela Meade Sargent

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-17-