Burke v. Soc. Sec. Admin.

1

PATRICK ALLEN BURKE, Plaintiff, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant.

No. 3:22-cv-00414

United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division

August 2, 2023

Honorable William L. Campbell, District Judge

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Alistair E. Newbern Magistrate Judge

Plaintiff Patrick Allen Burke filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (SSA) denying his application for disability insurance benefits (DIB) under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-434. (Doc. No. 1.) The Court referred this action to the Magistrate Judge to dispose or recommend disposition of any pretrial motions under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B). (Doc. No. 2.) Burke has filed a motion for judgment on the administrative record (Doc. No. 14), to which the Acting Commissioner has responded in opposition (Doc. No. 18), and Burke has filed a reply (Doc. No. 19). Having considered the parties' arguments and the administrative record (Doc. No. 10) as a whole, the Magistrate Judge will recommend that the Court deny Burke's motion and affirm the Acting Commissioner's decision.

I. Background

A. Burke's DIB Application

Burke applied for DIB on September 27, 2019, alleging that he has been disabled and unable to work since May 30, 2014, due to spinal stenosis, degenerative disc disease, coronary artery disease, diabetes, peripheral neuropathy, depressive disorder, and skin cancer. (AR 40-41.^[1]) The Commissioner denied Burke's application initially and on reconsideration. (AR 46, 57.) At Burke's request, an administrative law judge (ALJ) held a telephonic hearing regarding his application on February 10, 2021. (AR 27-39, 75-79.) Burke appeared with counsel and testified. (AR 29, 31-36.) The ALJ also heard testimony from a vocational expert. (AR 36-38.)

B. The ALJ's Findings

On February 24, 2021, the ALJ issued a written decision finding that Burke was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act and applicable regulations and denying his claim for DIB. (AR 16-23.) The ALJ made the following enumerated findings:

1. The claimant last met the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act on March 31, 2017.

2. The claimant did not engage in substantial gainful activity during the period from his alleged onset date of May 30, 2014 through his date last insured of March 31, 2017 (20 CFR 404.1571 et seq.).

3. Through the date last insured, the claimant had the following severe impairments: cervical and lumbar degenerative disc disease and obesity (20 CFR 404.1520(c)).

* * *

4. Through the date last insured, the claimant did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 CFR 404.1520(d), 404.1525 and 404.1526).

* * *

5. After careful consideration of the entire record, I find that, through the date last insured, the claimant had the residual functional capacity to perform the full range of light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b).

* * *

6. Through the date last insured, the claimant was capable of performing past relevant work as a sales clerk, Dictionary Occupational Titles (DOT)#290.477-014 light and semiskilled.[ ] This work did not require the performance of work-related activities precluded by the claimant's residual functional capacity (20 CFR 404.1565).

* * *

7. The claimant was not under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, at any time from May 30, 2014, the alleged onset date, through March 31, 2017, the date last insured (20 CFR 404.1520(f)).

(AR 18-23.) The Social Security Appeals Council denied Burke's request for review on April 11, 2022, making the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Acting Commissioner.^[2] (AR 1-7.)

C. Appeal Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)

Burke filed this action for review on June 8, 2022 (Doc. No. 1), and this Court has jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Burke argues that the Court should remand this case to the SSA for reconsideration because the ALJ improperly evaluated the severity of his orthopedic impairments and misclassified Burke's prior work as a salesclerk as substantial gainful activity. (Doc. No. 15.) The Acting Commissioner responds that the ALJ complied with SSA regulations and that substantial record evidence supports his decision. (Doc. No. 18.) Burke filed a reply. (Doc. No. 19.)

D. Review of the Record

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

II. Legal Standards

A. Standard of Review

This Court's review of an ALJ's decision is limited to determining (1) whether the ALJ's findings are supported by substantial evidence and (2) whether the ALJ applied the correct legal standards. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Miller v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 811 F.3d 825, 833 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting Blakley v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399, 405 (6th Cir. 2009)). “Under the substantial-evidence standard, a court looks to an existing administrative record and asks whether it contains ‘sufficien[t] evidence' to support the agency's factual determinations.” Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S.Ct. 1148, 1154 (2019) (alteration in original) (quoting Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance but “more than a mere scintilla” and means “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. (quoting Consol. Edison Co., 305 U.S. at 229); see also Gentry v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 741 F.3d 708, 722 (6th Cir. 2014) (same). Further, “[t]he Social Security Administration has established rules for how an ALJ must evaluate a disability claim and has made promises to disability applicants as to how their claims and medical evidence will be reviewed.” Gentry, 741 F.3d at 723. Where an ALJ fails to follow those rules or regulations, “we find a lack of substantial evidence, ‘even where the conclusion of the ALJ may be justified based upon the record.'” Miller, 811 F.3d at 833 (quoting Gentry, 741 F.3d at 722).

B. Determining Disability at the Administrative Level

Burke applied for DIB under Title II of the Social Security Act, which is an insurance program that “provides old-age, survivor, and disability benefits to insured individuals irrespective of financial need.” Bowen v. Galbreath, 485 U.S. 74, 75 (1988). To receive DIB, Burke must establish that he had a disability on or before the last date he was eligible for insurance under Title II, which is determined based on his earnings record. See 42 U.S.C. § 423(a)(1)(A), (c)(1);20 C.F.R. § 404.130.

“Disability” in this context is defined as an “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. § 423(d)(1)(A).

ALJs must employ a “five-step sequential evaluation process” to determine whether a claimant is disabled, proceeding through each step until a determination can be reached. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). At step one, the ALJ considers the claimant's work activity. Id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i). “[I]f the claimant is performing substantial gainful activity, then the claimant is not disabled.” Miller, 811 F.3d at 834 n.6. At step two, the ALJ determines whether the claimant suffers from “a severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment” or “combination of impairments” that meets the 12-month durational requirement. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). “If the claimant does not have a severe impairment or combination of impairments [that meets the durational requirement], then the claimant is not disabled.” Miller, 811 F.3d at 834 n.6. At step three, the ALJ considers whether the claimant's medical impairment or impairments appear on a list maintained by the SSA that “identifies and defines impairments that are of sufficient severity as to prevent any gainful activity.” Combs v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 459 F.3d 640, 643 (6th Cir. 2006); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). “If the claimant's impairment meets or equals one of the listings, then the ALJ will find the claimant disabled.” Miller, 811 F.3d at 834 n.6. If not, the ALJ proceeds to step four. Combs, 459 F.3d at 643; see also Walker v. Berryhill, No. 3:16-1231, 2017 WL 6492621, at *3 (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 19, 2017) (explaining that “[a] claimant is not required to show the existence of a listed impairment in order to be found disabled, but such showing results in an automatic finding of disability and ends the inquiry”), report and recommendation adopted, 2018 WL 305748 (M.D. Tenn. Jan. 5, 2018).

At step four, the ALJ evaluates the claimant's past relevant work and “‘residual functional capacity,' defined as ‘the most [the claimant] can still do despite [his] limitations.'” Combs, 459 F.3d at 643 (first alteration in original) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1)); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). Past work is relevant to this analysis if the claimant performed the work within the past 15 years, the work qualifies as substantial gainful activity, and the work lasted long enough for the claimant to learn how to do it. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1560(b)(1). If the claimant's residual functional capacity (RFC) permits him to perform past relevant work, he is not disabled. Combs, 459 F.3d at 643. If a claimant cannot perform past relevant work, the ALJ proceeds to step five and determines whether, “in...