Desonia v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 19

ORDER Granting Plaintiff's 12 Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying Defendant's 17 Motion for Summary Judgment. The ALJ's decision is REVERSED AND REMANDED to the Commissioner of Social Security for an immediate award of benefits. Judgment shall be entered in favor of Plaintiff. File is closed. Signed by Judge Salvador Mendoza, Jr. (RG, Ops Supervisor)

FILED IN THE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

1

Sep 26, 2017

2

SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

3
4

ARNOLD ERNEST DESONIA,

No. 4:16-CV-5097-SMJ

5
Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION
AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S
SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION

6
v.
7
8

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.

9
10

I.

11

INTRODUCTION

12

Before the Court, without oral argument, are cross-summary-judgment

13

motions. ECF Nos. 12 & 17. Plaintiff Arnold Ernest Desonia appeals the

14

Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) denial of benefits. ECF No. 1. The

15

Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) asks the Court to affirm the

16

ALJ’s decision.

17

After reviewing the record and relevant authority, the Court is fully informed.

18

As discussed below, the ALJ erred by finding that Mr. Desonia did not have any

19

impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the

20

severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404. Because Mr. Desonia’s

ORDER - 1

1

heart condition met Listing 4.04, he is conclusively presumed to be disabled.

2

Accordingly, the Court reverses the ALJ’s decision and remands for an immediate

3

award of benefits.
II.

4

Statement of Facts 1

5

Mr. Desonia was born July 16, 1951. AR 138. He has a GED and some auto-

6

body repair training. AR 42–43. He served in the U.S. Army for three years and

7

received medical care through the Veteran’s Administration (VA). AR 42. Mr.

8

Desonia has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since 2007.2 AR 148. His

9

work experience prior to that time included insurance sales and computer call-in

10

assistant. Id.

11

Mr. Desonia filed an application for Social Security disability benefits in May

12

2013, alleging an onset date of July 1, 2011. AR 18. He subsequently amended the

13

alleged onset date to December 1, 2011. AR 18, 39. His application was denied

14

initially and on reconsideration. AR 33–70. The ALJ denied Mr. Desonia’s

15

application following a hearing. AR 18–28. The Appeals Council denied his request

16

for review. AR 1–4.

17
18
1

19
20

The facts are only briefly summarized. Detailed facts are contained in the
administrative hearing transcript, the ALJ’s decision, and the parties’ briefs.
2
Mr. Desonia continued to do some work hauling disabled vehicles after this period,
but the ALJ found that he had not engaged in substantial gainful activity during the
relevant period. AR 20.

ORDER - 2

III.

1

Disability Determination

2

A “disability” is defined as the “inability to engage in any substantial gainful

3

activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment

4

which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to

5

last for a continuous period of not less than twelve months.” 42 U.S.C.

6

§§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A). The decision-maker uses a five-step sequential

7

evaluation process to determine whether a claimant is disabled.

8

§§ 404.1520, 416.920.

20 C.F.R.

9

Step one assesses whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful

10

activities. If he is, benefits are denied. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(b), 416.920(b). If

11

he is not, the decision-maker proceeds to step two.

12

Step two assesses whether the claimant has a medically severe impairment

13

or combination of impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). If the

14

claimant does not, the disability claim is denied.

15

evaluation proceeds to the third step.

If the claimant does, the

16

Step three compares the claimant’s impairment with a number of listed

17

impairments acknowledged by the Commissioner to be so severe as to preclude

18

substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 404 Subpt. P App. 1,

19

416.920(d). If the impairment meets or equals one of the listed impairments, the

20

ORDER - 3

1

claimant is conclusively presumed to be disabled. If the impairment does not, the

2

evaluation proceeds to the fourth step.

3

Step four assesses whether the impairment prevents the claimant from

4

performing work he has performed in the past by examining the claimant’s residual

5

functional capacity. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e). If the claimant is able

6

to perform his previous work, he is not disabled. If the claimant cannot perform

7

this work, the evaluation proceeds to the fifth step.

8

Step five, the final step, assesses whether the claimant can perform other

9

work in the national economy in view of his age, education, and work experience.

10

20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f); see Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137 (1987).

11

If the claimant can, the disability claim is denied. If the claimant cannot, the

12

disability claim is granted.

13

The burden of proof shifts during this sequential disability analysis. The

14

claimant has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of entitlement to

15

disability benefits. Rhinehart v. Finch, 438 F.2d 920, 921 (9th Cir. 1971). The

16

burden then shifts to the Commissioner to show 1) the claimant can perform other

17

substantial gainful activity, and 2) that a “significant number of jobs exist in the

18

national economy," which the claimant can perform. Kail v. Heckler, 722 F.2d

19

1496, 1498 (9th Cir. 1984). A claimant is disabled only if his impairments are of

20

such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot,

ORDER - 4

1

considering his age, education, and work experiences, engage in any other

2

substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy. 42 U.S.C. §§

3

423(d)(2)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(B).

4

V.

Standard of Review

5

The Court must uphold an ALJ’s determination that a claimant is not disabled

6

if the ALJ applied the proper legal standards and there is substantial evidence in the

7

record as a whole to support the decision. Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110

8

(9th Cir. 2012) (citing Stone v. Heckler, 761 F.2d 530, 531 (9th Cir. 1985)).

9

“Substantial evidence ‘means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might

10

accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’” Id. at 1110 (quoting Valentine v.

11

Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 690 (9th Cir. 2009)). This must be more

12

than a mere scintilla, but may be less than a preponderance. Id. at 1110–11 (citation

13

omitted). Even where the evidence supports more than one rational interpretation,

14

the Court must uphold an ALJ’s decision if it is supported by inferences reasonably

15

drawn from the record. Id.; Allen v. Heckler, 749 F.2d 577, 579 (9th Cir. 1984).
VI.

16

ANALYSIS

17

The ALJ found at step one that Mr. Desonia did not engage in substantial

18

gainful activity during the relevant period. AR 20. At step two, the ALJ found that

19

Mr. Desonia had two severe impairments: coronary artery disease and hypertension.

20

AR 20–21. The ALJ found that Mr. Desonia’s other conditions, including

ORDER - 5

1

depression, were not severe. AR 20–24. At step three, the ALJ concluded that Mr.

2

Desonia’s impairments did not meet or medically equal any listed impairment. AR

3

24. At step four, the ALJ concluded that Mr. Desonia retained the residual

4

functional capacity to perform sedentary work and that he could perform past work

5

as a Customer Call-in Service person. AR 21. Because the ALJ concluded that Mr.

6

Desonia could perform past relevant work, he did not move on to step five.

7

Mr. Desonia challenges the ALJ’s decision at steps two, three, and four. Mr.

8

Desonia argues that at step two the ALJ should have also found that his depression

9

was a severe impairment. ECF No. 12 at 10, 13. Mr. Desonia argues that the ALJ

10

erred at step three by finding that his heart condition did not meet or equal a listed

11

impairment. ECF No. 12 at 11 Mr. Desonia argues that the ALJ’s step-four

12

determination that he could perform his past work is not supported by substantial

13

evidence because it fails to reflect all of Mr. Desonia’s limitations. ECF No. 12 at

14

12. Mr. Desonia also argues that ALJ improperly found his symptom testimony not

15

credible. ECF No. 12 at 13.

16

Because the ALJ incorrectly found at step three that Mr. Desonia’s heart

17

condition did not meet Listing 4.04, it is clear from the record that Mr. Desonia is

18

entitled to benefits and it is unnecessary to address his other arguments. The ALJ

19

addressed step three only very briefly, concluding:

20

The claimant’s heart condition did not meet or equal the requirements
of listing 4.04. For instance, he did not have an ischemic episode

ORDER - 6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

requiring revascularization within a 12-month period. He was able to
undergo a stress test. He was able to perform activities of daily living,
such as living independently, interacting with others, caring for
himself, working at his own business, and so forth.
AR 24.
Listing 4.04 provides three alternate ways that a claimant can demonstrate
listing-level ischemic heart disease:
Ischemic heart disease, with symptoms due to myocardial ischemia, as
described in 4.00E3-4.00E7, while on a regimen of prescribed
treatment (see 4.00B3 if there is no regimen of prescribed treatment),
with one of the following:

8
9

A. Sign-or symptom-limited exercise tolerance test demonstrating at
least one of the following manifestations at a workload equivalent to 5
METs or less:

10
1. Horizontal or downsloping depression, in the absence of
digitalis glycoside treatment or hypokalemia, of the ST segment
of at least −0.10 millivolts (−1.0 mm) in at least 3 consecutive
complexes that are on a level baseline in any lead other than a
VR, and depression of at least −0.10 millivolts lasting for at least
1 minute of recovery; or

11
12
13

2. At least 0.1 millivolt (1 mm) ST elevation above resting
baseline in non-infarct leads during both exercise and 1 or more
minutes of recovery; or

14
15

3. Decrease of 10 mm Hg or more in systolic pressure below the
baseline blood pressure or the preceding systolic pressure
measured during exercise (see 4.00E9e) due to left ventricular
dysfunction, despite an increase in workload; or

16
17
18

4. Documented ischemia at an exercise level equivalent to 5
METs or less on appropriate medically acceptable imaging,
such as radionuclide perfusion scans or stress echocardiography.

19
20
OR

ORDER - 7

1
2

B. Three separate ischemic episodes, each requiring revascularization
or not amenable to revascularization (see 4.00E9f), within a
consecutive 12-month period (see 4.00A3e).

3
OR
4
5
6
7
8

C. Coronary artery disease, demonstrated by angiography (obtained
independent of Social Security disability evaluation) or other
appropriate medically acceptable imaging, and in the absence of a
timely exercise tolerance test or a timely normal drug-induced stress
test, an MC, preferably one experienced in the care of patients with
cardiovascular disease, has concluded that performance of exercise
tolerance testing would present a significant risk to the individual, with
both 1 and 2:
1. Angiographic evidence showing:

9

a. 50 percent or more narrowing of a nonbypassed left
main coronary artery; or

10
11

b. 70 percent or more narrowing of another nonbypassed
coronary artery; or

12

c. 50 percent or more narrowing involving a long (greater
than 1 cm) segment of a nonbypassed coronary artery; or

13
14

d. 50 percent or more narrowing of at least two
nonbypassed coronary arteries; or

15

e. 70 percent or more narrowing of a bypass graft vessel;
and

16
17

2. Resulting in very serious limitations in the ability to
independently initiate, sustain, or complete activities of daily
living.

18
19

The ALJ appeared to find that Mr. Desonia’s condition did not meet or equal
20
Listing 4.04 under paragraph B. or C. because Mr. Desonia “did not have an

ORDER - 8

1

ischemic episode requiring revascularization within a 12-month period” and he was

2

“he was able to undergo a stress test,” AR 24. However, the ALJ did not consider

3

whether the results of Mr. Desonia’s stress test demonstrated that his condition met

4

Listing 4.04 under paragraph A. The results of the stress test conducted by Dr.

5

Robert Fleming in April 2013 unambiguously meet Listing 4.04 under paragraph

6

A.1. AR 277–303. As Dr. Fleming concluded, the test showed “1.5 mm

7

downsloping ST depression on lead V5 and V6 that happened at 2 minutes into

8

exercise and recovered 3 minutes into recovery.” AR 303. Subsequent

9

catheterization conducted by Dr. D. Elizabeth Le confirmed several severe

10

blockages requiring coronary bypass surgery, including that Mr. Desonia’s right

11

coronary artery was 100% blocked and several other significant arteries were

12

approximately 90% blocked. AR 377–78. Mr. Desonia’s credibility and daily living

13

activities are irrelevant to this analysis.

14

Mr. Desonia’s heart condition met Listing 4.04. He is therefore conclusively

15

presumed to be disabled and it is unnecessary to resolve any other issues raised in

16

this matter. It is clear from the record that Mr. Desonia is entitled to disability

17

benefits.
VII. Conclusion.

18
19

For the reasons discussed, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

20

ORDER - 9

1

1.

GRANTED.

2
3

2.

The Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 17, is
DENIED.

4
5

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 12, is

3.

The ALJ’s decision is REVERSED and this matter is REMANDED

6

to the Commissioner of Social Security for an immediate award of

7

benefits.

8

4.

JUDGMENT is to be entered in the Plaintiff’s favor.

9

5.

The case shall be CLOSED.

10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order and
provide copies to all counsel.
DATED this 26th day of September 2017.

13
__________________________
SALVADOR MENDOZA, JR.
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20

ORDER - 10