Anderson v. Saul

LATAYA ANDERSON v. ANDREW M. SAUL Commissioner of Social Security

No. 3:20-0114

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION

January 22, 2021

To: The Honorable Aleta A. Trauger, District Judge

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) to obtain judicial review of the final decision of the Social Security Administration ("Commissioner" or "Defendant") denying Plaintiff's claim for Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") as provided under Title XVI of the Social Security Act ("the Act"). The case is currently pending on Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the administrative record (Docket Entry ("DE") 19), to which Defendant has filed a response. (DE 21.) Plaintiff has also filed a reply to Defendant's response. (DE 22.) This matter has been referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) for initial consideration and a Report and Recommendation. (DE 4.)

Upon review of the administrative record as a whole and consideration of the parties' filings, the undersigned Magistrate Judge respectfully recommends that Plaintiff's motion (DE 19) be GRANTED, the decision of the Commissioner be REVERSED, and this matter be REMANDED for further administrative proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff filed an application for SSI on November 8, 2016. (Transcript of the Administrative Record (DE 13) at 90.)¹ She alleged a disability onset date of December 16, 2015 and asserted that she was unable to work because of bipolar disorder, anxiety, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder ("ADHD"), and pain in the back, knees, and left arm. (AR 90-91.) Plaintiff's application was denied initially and upon reconsideration. (AR 90, 109.) Pursuant to her request for a hearing before an administrative law judge ("ALJ"), Plaintiff appeared with counsel and testified at a hearing before ALJ Robert Martin on October 24, 2018. (AR 32.) The ALJ denied the claim on March 20, 2019. (AR 12-14.) The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review of the ALJ's decision on December 9, 2019 (AR 1-3), thereby making the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Commissioner. This civil action was thereafter timely filed and the Court has jurisdiction. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

II. THE ALJ FINDINGS

The ALJ's unfavorable decision included the following enumerated findings based upon the record:

1. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since November 8, 2016, the application date (20 CFR 416.971 et seq.).

2. The claimant has the following severe impairments: degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, dysfunction of major joints, depressive disorder, anxiety disorder and personality disorder (20 CFR 416.920(c)).

3. The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 CFR 416.920(d), 416.925 and 416.926).

4. After careful consideration of the entire record, the undersigned finds that the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform sedentary work as defined in 20 CFR 416.967(a). She can lift, carry, push, and pull 10 pounds frequently and 10 pounds occasionally, sit 6 hours in an 8-hour workday, and stand/walk 2 hours in an 8-hour workday. She is limited to occasional postural activities except she can never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds. She should avoid concentrated exposure to work around hazardous machinery, moving parts, vibrations, and work at unprotected heights. She is limited to simple, routine, repetitive tasks and simple work-related decisions. She can interact occasionally with supervisors and co-workers, but no interaction with the general public. She can adapt to occasional changes in the workplace. She can maintain concentration, persistence, and pace for such tasks with normal breaks spread throughout the day.

5. The claimant has no past relevant work (20 CFR 416.965).

6. The claimant was born on April 12, 1980 and was 36 years old, which is defined as a younger individual age 18-44, on the date the application was filed (20 CFR 416.963).

7. The claimant has a limited education and is able to communicate in English (20 CFR 416.964).

8. Transferability of job skills is not an issue because the claimant does not have past relevant work (20 CFR 416.968).

9. Considering the claimant's age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity, there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that the claimant can perform (20 CFR 416.969, and 416.969a).

10. The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, since November 8, 2016, the date the application was filed (20 CFR 416.920(g)).

(AR 17-27.)

III. REVIEW OF THE RECORD

The parties and the ALJ have thoroughly summarized and discussed the medical and testimonial evidence of the administrative record. Accordingly, the Court will discuss those matters only to the extent necessary to analyze the parties' arguments.

IV. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

A. Standard of Review

The determination of disability under the Act is an administrative decision. The only questions before this Court upon judicial review are: (i) whether the decision of the Commissioner is supported by substantial evidence, and (ii) whether the Commissioner made legal errors in the process of reaching the decision. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Substantial evidence is defined as "more than a mere scintilla" and "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) (quoting Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). If substantial evidence supports the ALJ's decision, that decision must be affirmed "even if there is substantial evidence in the record that would have supported an opposite conclusion." Blakley v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399, 406 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Key v. Callahan, 109 F.3d 270, 273 (6th Cir. 1997)). In other words:

The Commissioner's findings are not subject to reversal merely because substantial evidence exists in the record to support a different conclusion. The substantial evidence standard presupposes that there is a "zone of choice" within which the Commissioner may proceed without interference from the courts. If the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence, a reviewing court must affirm.

Felisky v. Bowen, 35 F.3d 1027, 1035 (6th Cir. 1994).

The ALJ utilizes a five-step sequential evaluation process to determine whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a). If the issue of disability can be resolved at any point during the evaluation, the ALJ does not proceed to the next step and the claim is not reviewed further. Id. § 416.920(a)(4). At step one, the claimant must show that she is not engaged in "substantial gainful activity" at the time disability benefits are sought; at step two, the ALJ considers whether one or more of the claimant's alleged impairments are "severe" in nature; at step three, the ALJ determines whether the impairments at issue meet or equal one of the Listings contained in theregulatory List of Impairments; at step four, the ALJ considers the claimant's residual functional capacity ("RFC") and determines whether the claimant can still perform past relevant work; at step five, the burden of proof shifts to the ALJ to assess whether the claimant, after establishing that past relevant work is no longer possible, is capable of performing other types of work. Id.

If the ALJ determines at step four that the claimant can perform past relevant work, the claimant is "not disabled" and the ALJ need not complete the remaining steps of the sequential analysis. Id. § 416.920(a)(4)(iv). "Past relevant work" is defined as "substantial gainful activity" that a claimant has done within the past 15 years and that lasted long enough for the claimant to learn to do it. Id. § 416.960(b)(1). If the claimant is unable to perform past relevant work, however, the ALJ proceeds to step five to determine whether, in light of the claimant's RFC, age, education, and work experience, the claimant can perform other substantial gainful employment and whether such employment exists in significant numbers in the national economy. Id. § 416.920(a)(4)(v). In evaluating a claimant's RFC, the ALJ must consider the combined effect of all of the claimant's impairments, mental and physical, severe and nonsevere. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(B), (5)(B).

The Court's review of the Commissioner's decision is limited to the record made during the administrative hearing process. Willbanks v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 847 F.2d 301, 303 (6th Cir. 1988). A reviewing court is not permitted to try the case de novo, resolve conflicts in evidence, or decide questions of credibility. Bass v. McMahon, 499 F.3d 506, 509 (6th Cir. 2007) (citing Smith v. Halter, 307 F.3d 377, 379 (6th Cir. 2001)). The Court is required to accept the ALJ's explicit findings and ultimate determination unless the record as a whole is without substantial evidence to support the ALJ's determination. Houston v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 736 F.2d 365, 366 (6th Cir. 1984) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)).

B. The ALJ's Five-Step Evaluation of Plaintiff

In the instant case, the ALJ resolved the Plaintiff's claim at step five of the five-step process. The ALJ found that Plaintiff met the first two steps, but found at step three that Plaintiff was not presumptively disabled because she did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. At step four, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had no past relevant work. At step five, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff's RFC allowed her to perform sedentary work with express limitations to account for her severe impairments, and that...