Bunn v. Soc. Sec. Admin.

MARSHA JEAN BUNN, Plaintiff v. SOCIAL SECURITYADMINISTRATION, COMMISSIONER, Defendant

Case No. 2:20-cv-00218-HNJ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION

March 29, 2021

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Marsha Jean Bunn seeks judicial review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of an adverse, final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("Commissioner"), regarding her claim for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits. The undersigned carefully considered the record, and for the reasons expressed herein, AFFIRMS the Commissioner's decision.¹

LAW AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

To qualify for benefits, the claimant must be disabled as defined by the Social Security Act and the Regulations promulgated thereunder. The Regulations define "disabled" as the "inability to do any substantial gainful activity by reason of anymedically 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 twelve (12) months." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1505(a). To establish an entitlement to disability benefits, a claimant must provide evidence of a "physical or mental impairment" which "results from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities which are demonstrable by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques." 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(3).

In determining whether a claimant suffers a disability, the Commissioner, through an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), works through a five-step sequential evaluation process. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). The burden rests upon the claimant at the first four steps of this five-step process; the Commissioner sustains the burden at step five, if the evaluation proceeds that far. Washington v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 906 F.3d 1353, 1359 (11^th Cir. 2018).

In the first step, the claimant cannot be currently engaged in substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b). Second, the claimant must prove the impairment is "severe" in that it "significantly limits [the] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities . . . ." Id. at § 404.1520(c).

At step three, the evaluator must conclude the claimant is disabled if the impairments meet or medically equal one of the impairments listed at 20 C.F.R. Part404, Subpart P, App. 1, §§ 1.00-114.02. Id. at § 404.1520(d). If a claimant's impairment meets the applicable criteria at this step, that claimant's impairment would prevent any person from performing substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 404.1525. That is, a claimant who satisfies steps one and two qualifies automatically for disability benefits if the claimant suffers a listed impairment. See Williams v. Astrue, 416 F. App'x 861, 862 (11^th Cir. 2011) ("If, at the third step, [the claimant] proves that [an] impairment or combination of impairments meets or equals a listed impairment, [the claimant] is automatically found disabled regardless of age, education, or work experience.") (citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.920; Crayton v. Callahan, 120 F.3d 1217, 1219 (11^th Cir. 1997)).

If the claimant's impairment or combination of impairments does not meet or medically equal a listed impairment, the evaluation proceeds to the fourth step, where the claimant demonstrates an incapacity to meet the physical and mental demands of past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). At this step, the evaluator must determine whether the claimant has the residual functional capacity ("RFC") to perform the requirements of past relevant work. See id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). If the claimant's impairment or combination of impairments does not prevent performance of past relevant work, the evaluator will determine the claimant is not disabled. See id.

If the claimant succeeds at the preceding step, the fifth step shifts the burden to the Commissioner to provide evidence, considering the claimant's RFC, age, education and past work experience, that the claimant is capable of performing other work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g). If the claimant can perform other work, the evaluator will not find the claimant disabled. See id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g). If the claimant cannot perform other work, the evaluator will find the claimant disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 404.1520(g).

The court reviews the ALJ's "decision with deference to the factual findings and close scrutiny of the legal conclusions." Parks ex rel. D.P. v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 783 F.3d 847, 850 (11^th Cir. 2015) (quoting Cornelius v. Sullivan, 936 F.2d 1143, 1145 (11^th Cir. 1991)). The court must determine whether substantial evidence supports the Commissioner's decision and whether the Commissioner applied the proper legal standards. Winschel v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1178 (11^th Cir. 2011). Although the court must "scrutinize the record as a whole . . . to determine if the decision reached is reasonable . . . and supported by substantial evidence," Bloodsworth v. Heckler, 703 F.2d 1233, 1239 (11^th Cir. 1983) (citations omitted), the court "may not decide the facts anew, reweigh the evidence, or substitute [its] judgment" for that of the ALJ. Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1178 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). "Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla and is such relevant evidence as areasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Id. (citations omitted). Nonetheless, substantial evidence exists even if the evidence preponderates against the Commissioner's decision. Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 1211 (11^th Cir. 2005). Although the court reviews the ALJ's decision for substantial evidence, the court reviews her application of legal principles de novo. Id.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Ms. Bunn, age 43 at the time of the ALJ hearing, protectively filed an application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits on July 12, 2017, alleging disability beginning August 24, 2016. (Tr. 36-37, 148-49). The Commissioner denied Bunn's claims, and Bunn timely filed a request for a hearing on October 26, 2017. (Tr. 59-60, 86-87). An Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") held a hearing on March 14, 2019 (Tr. 34-54), and issued an opinion denying Bunn's claim on April 17, 2019. (Tr. 14-29).

Applying the five-step sequential process, the ALJ found at step one that Bunn had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since August 24, 2016. (Tr. 19). At step two, the ALJ found Bunn had the severe impairments of cervical fusion of C4-C5 and C5-C6, obesity, depression, and anxiety. (Id.). At step three, the ALJ found Bunn's impairments, or combination of impairments, did not meet or medically equal any impairment for presumptive disability listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix1. (Tr. 21). Next, the ALJ found that, despite her impairments, Bunn exhibited the residual functional capacity ("RFC") to perform

light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) except she should not climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds, and she should not push or pull foot controls with her right lower extremity. She should not kneel, crouch, or crawl, and she have [sic] no excessive vibration, unprotected heights, or hazardous machinery. Contact with the general public should not be an essential part of her job duties, and she can have work that can be around co-workers throughout the day but with only occasional interactions with co-workers. She has the ability to attend and concentrate for two-hour periods with no more than occasional workplace changes. She can only perform unskilled work with the ability to make simple work related decisions. She should also have a sit/stand option up to one hour at a time — sitting up to one hour before standing up to one hour.

(Tr. 23-24). At step four, the ALJ determined that Bunn could not perform her past relevant work as a retail clerk and school lunch room attendant. (Tr. 27). However, at step five, the ALJ determined that, considering Bunn's age, education, work experience, and RFC, she could perform a significant number of other jobs in the national economy, such as price marker, ticket taker, and silverware wrapper. (Tr. 27-28). Accordingly, the ALJ found that Bunn did not suffer a disability, as defined by the Social Security Act, since August 24, 2016. (Tr. 28).

Bunn timely requested review of the ALJ's decision. (Tr. 142-44). On January 7, 2020, the Appeals Council denied review, which deems the ALJ's decision as theCommissioner's final decision. (Tr. 1-8). On February 18, 2020, Bunn filed her complaint with the court seeking review of the ALJ's decision. (Doc. 1).

ANALYSIS

In this appeal, Bunn argues the ALJ: (1) failed to consider her back condition as a severe impairment; (2) improperly determined she failed to meet the requirements of Listings 12.04 and 12.06; (3) improperly evaluated the medical evidence; (4) erroneously found she retained the residual functional capacity to complete a limited range of light work; and (5) improperly discredited her subjective complaints of pain, mental and psychological symptoms, and other non-exertional limitations. For the reasons discussed below, the undersigned concludes none of Bunn's contentions warrant reversal.

I. The ALJ Did Not Err By Failing To Consider Bunn's Back Condition As A Severe Impairment

As discussed, at step two of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ found Bunn had the severe impairments of cervical fusion of C4-C5 and C5-C6, obesity, depression, and anxiety. (Tr. 19). Bunn argues the ALJ should also have considered her back condition as a severe impairment.

Step two of the sequential evaluation process, during which the ALJ considers the medical severity of a claimant's impairments, constitutes a "'threshold inquiry' and'allows only claims based on the most trivial impairments to be rejected.'" Schink v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 935 F.3d 1245, 1264-65 (11^th Cir. 2019) (citing Phillips v....