Foxworth v. Colvin, Civil Action No. 16-10243-NMG.

249 F.Supp.3d 585

Dolly FOXWORTH, Plaintiff,

v.Carolyn W. COLVIN, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 16-10243-NMG.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

Signed April 19, 2017

Marc D. Pepin, Jackson & MacNichol, South Portland, ME, for Plaintiff.

Shelbey D. Wright, United States Attorney's Office, Boston, MA, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

Nathaniel M. Gorton, United States District Judge

Plaintiff Dolly Foxworth ("Foxworth" or "plaintiff") seeks judicial review of the denial of her application for disability benefits by defendant, Carolyn W. Colvin ("the Commissioner" or "defendant"), in her official capacity as Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("SSA"). Before the Court are plaintiff's motion to reverse or remand the decision of the Commissioner and defendant's motion for an order affirming her decision. For the reasons that follow, the motion to reverse or remand will be denied and the motion to affirm will be allowed.

I. Background

A. Employment History and Alleged Disability

Foxworth was born in 1963 and has a seventh grade education. She states that she experienced physical, sexual and emotional abuse from certain family members and acquaintances during her childhood. She also purportedly suffered physical and emotional abuse from two former spouses.

For the past 15 years, Foxworth has worked in a variety of jobs. From 1997 to 2001, she was a cashier, salesperson and shelf stocker at a Kmart. In the early 2000s, she worked at a metal finishing company dying metal airplane parts. From 2002 to 2005, she worked at a cat shelter. In 2010 and 2011, she worked as a counter at Reynolds Food Packaging and a paper sorter at a Christmas Tree Shop. Since 2011, Foxworth has been unemployed. To support herself, she relies on state disability payments, food stamps and Section Eight housing subsidies.

The record shows that, since 2000, Foxworth has sought treatment for mental and physical health issues from numerous psychologists, doctors, therapists and other professionals. She has been diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ("COPD"), sleep apnea, Hepatitis C, morbid obesity, major depressive disorder, bi-polar disorder, anxiety, affective disorder, a learning disability and post-traumatic stress disorder ("PTSD").

B. Procedural Background

In 2012, Foxworth applied for supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act ("the Act") and for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Act. Plaintiff alleges that she became disabled in March, 2011 because of the numerous ailments described above. In April, 2013, the SSA denied Foxworth's claim and the following September her claim was again denied after reconsideration.

In October, 2013, Foxworth filed a request for a review hearing which was held in July, 2014, before Administrative Law Judge Paul W. Goodale ("the ALJ"). Foxworth was represented by counsel and the testifying witnesses were Foxworth and an impartial third party, vocational expert James Scorzelli Ph.D. ("Dr. Scorzelli" or "vocational expert"). The ALJ found that Foxworth was not disabled under § 1614(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

In October, 2014, Foxworth filed a timely appeal of the ALJ's decision to the Appeals Council. In December, 2015, the Appeals Council denied her request for review. In February, 2016, Foxworth filed her complaint in this Court.

C. The ALJ's Decision

The ALJ applied the five-step test promulgated by the SSA to determine if a claimant is disabled and may obtained benefits under § 1602 of the Act. 42 U.S.C. § 1381a. The test evaluates 1) whether the claimant is engaged in a "substantial gainful activity", 2) whether she has a severe impairment, 3) if there is a severe impairment, whether it is equivalent to impairments identified in the regulation, 4) whether the claimant's residual functional capacity ("RFC") is adequate for her previous work and, if not, 5) whether there are other jobs in the economy to which the claimant could adjust. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a) ; see also Deblois v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 686 F.2d 76, 79 (1st Cir. 1982).

In some circumstances, the guidelines in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2, § 200.00(a), commonly referred to as "the Grid", mandate a specific conclusion with respect to whether a claimant is disabled. The Grid takes into account age, education level, prior work experience and whether an individual has an RFC of "sedentary", "light", "medium" or "heavy" work and then determines, based on those factors, whether the individual is disabled.

Under the five-step analysis, the ALJ found that Foxworth was not engaged in substantial gainful activity and that she had several severe impairments but they were not equivalent to those identified in the Social Security Regulations. He further concluded that she had an RFC of light work with significant limitations, including an inability to stand for more than four hours a day. He also determined that she has numerous nonexertional limitations, including that she may work only at a low stress job and have only occasional interactions with others.

In his decision, the ALJ observed that the Grid is a tool to help simplify the disability analysis for the adjudicator. He stated that if an applicant is unable to perform the work considered appropriate for her RFC due to nonexertional limitations, the Grid does not apply. Because nonexertional limitations prevented Foxworth from performing many light work jobs, the ALJ determined that the Grid did not apply to her. To determine if there were any light work jobs to which she could adjust, he sought the testimony of a vocational expert, Dr. Scorzelli.

Dr. Scorzelli concluded that when her physical limits alone are considered, Foxworth can perform the light work job of cashier. When he took her nonexertional limits into account, however, Dr. Scorzelli determined that Foxworth cannot work as a cashier because it involves too many interactions with people but that she could adjust to three other jobs: 1) a call-out operator, 2) an addresser and 3) a surveillance system monitor. These three jobs all fall within the sedentary RFC classification. Because Dr. Scorzelli's testimony establishes that Foxworth can successfully adjust to jobs available in the economy, the ALJ found that she was not disabled.

Finally, the ALJ concluded that Foxworth is not entitled to Title II benefits because her date last insured for the purposes of her Title II application was March 11, 2011, and before that date, her claims for Title II benefits were denied in a final administrative decision.

II. Legal Analysis

A. Legal Standard

The Act gives United States District Courts ("District Courts") the power to affirm, modify or reverse an ALJ's decision or to remand the case for a rehearing. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). A District Court's review of an ALJ decision is not de novo, however. See Lizotte v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 654 F.2d 127, 128 (1st Cir. 1981). The Act provides that the findings of the Commissioner are conclusive if 1) they are "supported by substantial evidence" and 2) the Commissioner has applied the correct legal standard. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) ; Seavey v. Barhart, 276 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 2001). If those criteria are satisfied, the Court must uphold the Commissioner's decision even if the record could justify a different conclusion. Evangelista v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 826 F.2d 136, 144 (1st Cir. 1987). Substantial evidence means evidence "reasonably sufficient" to support the ALJ's conclusion. See Doyle v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 144 F.3d 181, 184 (1st Cir. 1998).

B. Application

Foxworth submits that when the ALJ denied her benefits he 1) improperly found that she had a RFC of light work, 2) failed to revise the RFC of light work to sedentary after Dr. Scorzelli's testimony, 3) ignored a medical assessment and 4) wrongly calculated her date last insured for her Title II claim.

1. The ALJ's Initial RFC Determination

Foxworth claims that, because testimony from Dr. Scorzelli showed that only sedentary jobs are suitable for her, the ALJ's determination that her RFC is light work was in error. The Commissioner responds that the ALJ's decision was correct because he properly applied the law in his disability determination and that plaintiff's objections are based on a misunderstanding of the regulatory framework.

The Commissioner's contention that the ALJ correctly determined that Foxworth's RFC is light work is sound. The SSA regulations define "light work" to include lifting up to 20 pounds on occasion, frequently lifting 10 pounds, a good deal of walking or standing and some pushing or pulling of leg and arm controls. 20 C.F.R. § 416.967(b). There is substantial evidence in the record to buttress the ALJ's finding of an RFC of light work and the ALJ correctly applied the legal standard.

First, substantial evidence exists to support the ALJ's conclusion that Foxworth's RFC is light work with significant limitations. Testimony and documentation indicate that Foxworth is able to complete household tasks on her own, visit with family, go grocery shopping and attend appointments. The record also indicates that her condition improves when she follows prescribed treatment regimens. The opinions of medical doctors and psychologists Drs. Julie Cohen, Ronald Nappi, Mark Colb and Rudolph Titanji also support the ALJ's decision.

Second, as addressed above, the ALJ correctly applied the five-step test for determining whether a claimant is disabled. In applying the test, he considered relevant evidence contained in the record and did not substitute his judgment for the uncontroverted medical evidence. Accordingly, because the ALJ relied on substantial evidence and applied the correct legal standard, his decision must be upheld. Rodriguez Pagan v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 819 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 1987).

2. The ALJ's Refusal to Revise Foxworth's RFC to Sedentary Work After Dr. Scorzelli's Testimony

Foxworth asserts that the ALJ...