Honeycutt v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

SABRINA E. HONEYCUTT, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:18-CV-509-CRS-CHL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE DIVISION

February 18, 2020

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is the Complaint of Plaintiff, Sabrina E. Honeycutt ("Honeycutt"), challenging the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the "Commissioner") denying her claim for childhood disability benefits ("CDB") and supplemental security income ("SSI"). (DN 1.) This case was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge to prepare a report and recommendation. (DN 15.) Honeycutt filed a brief in support and a Fact and Law Summary on May 20, 2019, (DN 21), and the Commissioner filed a Fact and Law Summary on August 20, 2019, (DN 27). Therefore, this matter is ripe for review.

For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the final decision of the Commissioner be AFFIRMED.

I. FINDINGS OF FACT

Honeycutt filed applications for CDB and for SSI. However, the administrative record is inconsistent both as to the dates she filed those applications and the alleged onset date as to each application. In her Fact and Law Summary, Honeycutt claimed that the record showed she filed an application for CDB on June 15, 1995, and an application for SSI on May 28, 2014, in both of which she alleged disability beginning May 23, 2014. (DN 21, at PageID # 858; DN 21-1, at PageID # 880.) In his Fact and Law Summary, the Commissioner listed Honeycutt's CDB application as being filed on either June 12, 1996, or February 28, 2015, and Honeycutt's SSI application as being filed on May 28, 2014, stating that in both applications Honeycutt alleged an onset date of May 28, 2013. (DN 27, at PageID # 892.) The ALJ in his decision referenced a February 28, 2015, application for CDB and a November 28, 2013, application for SSI, in both of which Honeycutt alleged disability beginning May 23, 2013. (DN 11-2, at PageID # 64.) The only application in the administrative record is an SSI application dated June 2, 2014, in which Honeycutt alleged disability beginning May 23, 2013. (DN 11-5, at PageID # 386-95.) The administrative record, other than the ALJ's decision, appears to only reference a CDB application filed June 15, 1996, (DN 11-3, at PageID # 206, 222, 236, 238) and an SSI application filed on May 28, 2014 (Id. at 207-08, 237, 256). As to the alleged onset date, the administrative record contains references to both a May 23, 2013, (DN 11-2, at PageID # 64; DN 11-3, at PageID # 239, 257, 288, 295, 386) and a May 23, 2014, (DN 11-3, at PageID # 208, 222-23, 409, 414) onset date.

Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") Greg Holsclaw conducted an initial hearing on Honeycutt's application on February 14, 2017, and a supplemental hearing on July 28, 2017. (DN 11-2, at PageID # 89-130, 172-204.) In a decision dated September 12, 2017, the ALJ engaged in the five-step sequential evaluation process promulgated by the Commissioner to determine whether Honeycutt was disabled. (Id. at 61-82.) Because Honeycutt was not yet eighteen years old on the alleged onset date the ALJ referenced, he also completed the three-step sequential evaluation process promulgated by the Commissioner to determine whether an individual under the age of eighteen is disabled. (Id.) In completing his evaluation, the ALJ made the following findings:

(1) The claimant was born on December 21, 1995 and was therefore in the "Adolescents (age 12 to attainment of age 18)" age group on November 28, 2013, the date the application was filed. The claimant attained age 18 on December 20, 2013. (Id. at 69.)

(2) The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the date the application was filed. (Id.)

(3) Before attaining age 18, the claimant had the followings severe impairments: history of patellofemoral chondromalacia/pain syndrome; obesity; degeneration of spine without canal stenosis; degeneration of the knee; tinnitus; small cystic structure in the posterior right frontal lobe gyrus with history of possible stroke, and residual complaints of headaches and vertigo/dizziness; mitral valve prolapse/costochondritis; ptosis/strabismic amblyopia/congenital cataract/small angle extropia of right eye; depression/adjustment disorder; anxiety. (Id. at 70.)

(4) Before attaining age 18, the claimant did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, Part A or B. (Id. at 73.)

(5) Before attaining age 18, the claimant did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that functionally equaled the listings. (Id.)

(6) Because the claimant did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met, medically equaled any listing or functionally equaled the listings, the claimant was not disabled prior to attaining age 18. (Id. at 78.)

(7) The claimant has not developed any new impairment or impairments since attaining age 18. (Id.)

(8) Since attaining age 18, the claimant has continued to have a severe impairment or combination of impairments. (Id.)

(9) Since attaining age 18, the claimant has not had an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals a listed impairment. (Id.)

(10) [S]ince attaining age 18, the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform less than full range of light work as defined in 20 CFR 416.967(b). Specifically, the claimant with eleventh grade reading ability and limited education (although she has completed high school), has the following exertional and non-exertional limitations: no lifting/carrying more than 20 pounds occasionally, 10 pounds frequently; no standing/walking more than six hours out of an eight-hour day, and for no more than 30 minutes at one time) [sic]; no sitting more than six hours out of an eight-hour day, and for no more than 30 minutes at one time; can do unlimited pushing/pulling up to the exertional limitations; no more than occasional balancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, crawling or climbing ramps or stairs, but no climbingladders, ropes or scaffolds; no work in areas of concentrated dusts, fumes, gases or other pulmonary irritants; no work that requires more than frequent far visual acuity, or more than occasional work that requires depth perception; work should be done in a sound environment that is no more than moderately loud (with the term "moderate" used here as defined in the Selected Characteristics of Occupations); no work in areas of concentrated full body vibration; no work around dangerous, moving machinery or unprotected heights; no more than simple, routine work; can persist in attention, concentration and pace for two-hours intervals necessary to complete simple tasks; no more than occasional interaction with co-worker or supervisor, but no more than occasional contact with the general public; no more than occasional changes in workplace setting. (Id. at 79.)

(11) The claimant has no past relevant work. (Id. at 81.)

(12) The claimant is currently a "younger individual age 18-44." (Id.)

(13) The claimant has a "limited" education within the meaning of the regulations and is able to communicate in English. (Id.)

(14) Transferability of job skills is not an issue because the claimant does not have past relevant work. (Id.)

(15) Since attaining age 18, considering the claimant's age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity, jobs have existed in significant numbers in the national economy that the claimant has been able to perform. (Id.)

(16) The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, from December 20, 2013, the day the claimant attained age 18, through the date of this decision. (Id. at 82.)

(17) The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, from May 23, 2013, through the date of this decision. (Id. at 82.)

Honeycutt requested review by the Appeals Council, which denied her request for review on June 1, 2018. (Id. at 48-53; DN 11-4, at PageID # 382-84.) At that point, the ALJ's decision became the final decision of the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. § 422.210(a) (2019); see also 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) (2018) (discussing finality of the Commissioner's decision). Pursuant to 20 C.F.R.§ 422.210(c), Honeycutt is presumed to have received that decision five days later. 20 C.F.R. § 422.210(c). Honeycutt filed this action on August 1, 2018. (DN 1.)

II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The Social Security Act authorizes payments of disability insurance benefits and SSI to persons with disabilities.¹ See 42 U.S.C. § 401 - 434, 1381-1383f (2018). An individual shall be considered "disabled" if he or she is unable "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); see also 20 C.F.R. § 416.905(a) (2019).

A. Standard of Review

The Court may review the final decision of the Commissioner but that review is limited to whether the Commissioner's findings are supported by "substantial evidence" and whether the Commissioner applied the correct legal standards. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Key v. Callahan, 109 F.3d 270, 273 (6th Cir. 1997). "Substantial evidence" means "more than a mere scintilla"; it means "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). The Court must "affirm the Commissioner's decision if it is based on substantial evidence, even if substantial evidence would have supported the opposite conclusion." Gayheart v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365, 374 (6th Cir. 2013); see Smith v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 893 F.2d 106, 108 (6th Cir. 1989) (holding that if the Court determines the ALJ's decision...