Balcom v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

1

JACOB E. BALCOM, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 20-12660

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

January 21, 2022

Robert H. Cleland United States District Judge

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF Nos. 17, 20)

DAVID R. GRAND, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Jacob Balcom (“Balcom”) brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), challenging the final decision of Defendant Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying his application for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under the Social Security Act (the “Act”). Both parties have filed summary judgment motions (ECF Nos. 17, 20), which have been referred to this Court for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

I. RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that the Administrative Law Judge's (“ALJ”) conclusion that Balcom is not disabled under the Act is not supported by substantial evidence. Thus, the Court RECOMMENDS that the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 20) be DENIED, Balcom's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 17) be GRANTED IN PART to the extent it seeks remand and DENIED IN PART to the extent it seeks an award of benefits, and that, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), this case be REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this Report and Recommendation.

II. REPORT

A. Background

Balcom was 21 years old at the time of his application date of December 6, 2017, and at 5'6” tall weighed approximately 125 pounds during the relevant time period. (PageID.99, 140, 155).^[1] He graduated from high school but had no further education and has never worked. (PageID.34, 115-16). He alleges disability primarily as a result of severe social anxiety, panic disorder with agoraphobia, depression, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. (PageID.52, 104, 155).

After Balcom's application for SSI was denied at the initial level on May 16, 2018 (Tr. 68-72), he timely requested an administrative hearing, which was held on October 2, 2019, before ALJ John Dodson (Tr. 32-50). Balcom, who was represented by non-attorney representative Denise Kamisar, testified at the hearing, as did vocational expert (“VE”) Michele Robb. (Id.). On October 30, 2019, the ALJ issued a written decision finding that Balcom is not disabled under the Act. (Tr. 18-26). On July 31, 2020, the Appeals Council denied review. (Tr. 1-6). Balcom timely filed for judicial review of the final decision on September 29, 2020. (ECF No. 1).

The Court has thoroughly reviewed the transcript in this matter, including Balcom's medical record, function and disability reports, and testimony as to his conditions and resulting limitations. Instead of summarizing that information here, the Court will make references and provide citations to the transcript as necessary in its discussion of the parties' arguments.

B. The ALJ's Application of the Disability Framework Analysis

Under the Act, SSI is available only for those who have a “disability.” See Colvin v. Barnhart, 475 F.3d 727, 730 (6th Cir. 2007). The Act defines “disability” as the “inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(A). The Commissioner's regulations provide that a disability is to be determined through the application of a five-step sequential analysis:

Step One: If the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity, benefits are denied without further analysis.

Step Two: If the claimant does not have a severe impairment or combination of impairments that “significantly limits . . . physical or mental ability to do basic work activities, ” benefits are denied without further analysis.

Step Three: If the claimant is not performing substantial gainful activity, has a severe impairment that is expected to last for at least twelve months, and the severe impairment meets or equals one of the impairments listed in the regulations, the claimant is conclusively presumed to be disabled regardless of age, education, or work experience.

Step Four: If the claimant is able to perform his or her past relevant work, benefits are denied without further analysis.

Step Five: Even if the claimant is unable to perform his or her past relevant work, if other work exists in the national economy that the claimant can perform, in view of his or her age, education, and work experience, benefits are denied.

Scheuneman v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 11-10593, 2011 WL 6937331, at *7 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 6, 2011) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520); see also Heston v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 245 F.3d 528, 534 (6th Cir. 2001). “The burden of proof is on the claimant throughout the first four steps …. If the analysis reaches the fifth step without a finding that claimant is not disabled, the burden transfers to the [defendant].” Preslar v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 14 F.3d 1107, 1110 (6th Cir. 1994).

Following this five-step sequential analysis, the ALJ found that Balcom is not disabled under the Act. At Step One, the ALJ found that Balcom has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since December 6, 2017 (the application date). (Tr. 20). At Step Two, the ALJ found that he has the severe impairments of panic disorder with agoraphobia and social anxiety, and depressive disorder. (Id.). At Step Three, the ALJ found that Balcom's impairments, whether considered alone or in combination, do not meet or medically equal a listed impairment. (Id.).

The ALJ then assessed Balcom's residual functional capacity (“RFC”), concluding that he is capable of performing the full range of work at all exertional levels, but with the following nonexertional limitations: unskilled work involving simple, routine, repetitive tasks and no work with the public. (Tr. 22).

At Step Four, the ALJ found that Balcom has no past relevant work. (Tr. 25). At Step Five, the ALJ determined, based in part on testimony provided by the VE in response to hypothetical questions, that Balcom is capable of performing the jobs of packer (120, 000 jobs nationally), cleaner (480, 000 jobs), and assembler (280, 000 jobs). (Tr. 25-26). As a result, the ALJ concluded that Balcom is not disabled under the Act. (Tr. 26).

C. Standard of Review

The District Court has jurisdiction to review the Commissioner's final administrative decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Judicial review under this statute is limited in that the court “must affirm the Commissioner's conclusions absent a determination that the Commissioner has failed to apply the correct legal standard or has made findings of fact unsupported by substantial evidence in the record.” Longworth v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 402 F.3d 591, 595 (6th Cir. 2005) (internal citations omitted). Substantial evidence is “more than a scintilla of evidence but less than a preponderance; it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Rogers v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234, 241 (6th Cir. 2007) (internal quotations omitted). In deciding whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ's decision, the court does “not 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).

When reviewing the Commissioner's factual findings, the court is limited to an examination of the record and must consider the record as a whole. See Bass, 499 F.3d at 512-13; Wyatt v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 974 F.2d 680, 683 (6th Cir. 1992). The court “may look to any evidence in the record, regardless of whether it has been cited by the Appeals Council, ” or in this case, the ALJ. Heston, 245 F.3d at 535; Walker v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 884 F.2d 241, 245 (6th Cir. 1989). There is no requirement, however, that either the ALJ or this court discuss every piece of evidence in the administrative record. See Kornecky v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 167 Fed.Appx. 496, 508 (6th Cir. 2006) (“[A]n ALJ can consider all evidence without directly addressing in his written decision every piece of evidence submitted by a party.”) (internal quotations omitted). If the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence, “it must be affirmed even if the reviewing court would decide the matter differently and even if substantial evidence also supports the opposite conclusion.” Cutlip v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 25 F.3d 284, 286 (6th Cir. 1994) (internal citations omitted).

D. Analysis

In his motion, Balcom argues that the ALJ erred in weighing the three medical opinions of record.^[2] (ECF No. 17, PageID.452-60). For the reasons set forth below, the Court agrees and finds that remand is warranted.

1. Disability Reports, Hearing Testimony, and Other Records

In a January 29, 2018 function report, Balcom indicated that he cannot leave his house - and much of the time does not even leave his room - due to his extreme anxiety and panic attacks. (PageID.233, 236). His activities are limited, and he is “very tired and fatigued, ” sleeping many hours during the day. (PageID.234). Balcom further indicated that he often remains in the same clothes for days and only showers when he has to leave the house for a medical appointment. (Id.). His mother needs to remind him to shower and she prepares his meals for him. (PageID.235). He does not do any household chores or shopping. (PageID.235-36). He has difficulty focusing and concentrating, and can never seem to complete a task. (PageID.238). He cannot drink out of...