Janet F. v. Saul

JANET F.¹, Plaintiff, v. ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

CIVIL NO. 4:19cv61

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

March 23, 2020

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the court for judicial review of a final decision of the defendant Commissioner of Social Security Administration denying Plaintiff's application for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) as provided for in the Social Security Act. Section 205(g) of the Act provides, inter alia, "[a]s part of his answer, the [Commissioner] shall file a certified copy of the transcript of the record including the evidence upon which the findings and decision complained of are based. The court shall have the power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the [Commissioner], with or without remanding the case for a rehearing." It also provides, "[t]he findings of the [Commissioner] as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive. . . ." 42 U.S.C. §405(g).

The law provides that an applicant for SSI must establish an "inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to last for a continuous period of no less than 12 months. . . ."42 U.S.C. §416(i)(1); 42 U.S.C. §423(d)(1)(A). A physical or mental impairment is "an impairment that 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). It is not enough for a plaintiff to establish that an impairment exists. It must be shown that the impairment is severe enough to preclude the plaintiff from engaging in substantial gainful activity. Gotshaw v. Ribicoff, 307 F.2d 840 (7th Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 372 U.S. 945 (1963); Garcia v. Califano, 463 F.Supp. 1098 (N.D.Ill. 1979). It is well established that the burden of proving entitlement to disability insurance benefits is on the plaintiff. See Jeralds v. Richardson, 445 F.2d 36 (7th Cir. 1971); Kutchman v. Cohen, 425 F.2d 20 (7th Cir. 1970).

Given the foregoing framework, "[t]he question before [this court] is whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence to support the [Commissioner's] findings." Garfield v. Schweiker, 732 F.2d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 1984) citing Whitney v. Schweiker, 695 F.2d 784, 786 (7th Cir. 1982); 42 U.S.C. §405(g). "Substantial evidence is defined as 'more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.'" Rhoderick v. Heckler, 737 F.2d 714, 715 (7th Cir. 1984) quoting Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401, 91 S.Ct. 1410, 1427 (1971); see Allen v. Weinberger, 552 F.2d 781, 784 (7th Cir. 1977). "If the record contains such support [it] must [be] affirmed, 42 U.S.C. §405(g), unless there has been an error of law." Garfield, supra at 607; see also Schnoll v. Harris, 636 F.2d 1146, 1150 (7th Cir. 1980).

In the present matter, after consideration of the entire record, the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") made the following findings:

1. The claimant last met the insured status requirements of the Social Security Acton December 31, 2017.

2. The claimant did not engage in substantial gainful activity during the period from her alleged onset date of August 10, 2012 through her date last insured of December 31, 2017 (20 CFR 404.1571 et seq.).

3. Through the date last insured, the claimant had the following severe impairments; congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD), osteoarthritis and sleep apnea (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, the undersigned finds that, through the date last insured, the claimant had the residual functional capacity to perform sedentary work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(a) as the claimant was able to stand and/or walk for two hours in an eight hour workday and sit for six hours in an eight hour workday, except: the claimant was able to lift and/or carry 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently, needed to alternate between sitting and standing for 10 minutes every hour while remaining on task and at the workstation, was unable to climb ladders, ropes or scaffolds, could occasionally climb ramps and stairs, balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, crawl or reach overhead with the bilateral upper extremities, could frequently handle, finger and feel or reach in all other directions with the bilateral upper extremities and needed to avoid concentrated exposure to extreme humidity and vibration and loud noise and moderate exposure to pulmonary irritants such as dust, fumes and gases and extreme temperatures. In addition, the claimant required work that was free of fast production pace and quotas.

6. Through the date last insured, the claimant was unable to perform any past relevant work (20 CFR 404.1565).

7. The claimant was born on February 7, 1974 and was 43 years old, which is defined as a younger individual age 18-44, on the date last insured (20 CFR 404.1563).

8. The claimant has at least a high school education and is able to communicate in English (20 CFR 404.1564).

9. Transferability of job skills is not an issue in this case because the claimant's past relevant work is unskilled (20 CFR404.1568).

10. Through the date last insured, considering the claimant's age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity, there were jobs that existed in significant numbers in the national economy that the claimant could have performed (20 CFR 404.1569 and 404.1569(a)).

11. The claimant was not under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, at any time from August 10, 2012, the alleged onset date, through December 31, 2017, the date last insured (20 CFR 404.1520(g)).

(Tr. 12- 22 ).

Based upon these findings, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff was not entitled to benefits. The ALJ's decision became the final agency decision when the Appeals Council denied review. This appeal followed.

Plaintiff filed her opening brief on December 13, 2019. On January 24, 2020 the defendant filed a memorandum in support of the Commissioner's decision to which Plaintiff replied on February 21, 2020. Upon full review of the record in this cause, this court is of the view that the ALJ's decision should be remanded.

A five step test has been established to determine whether a claimant is disabled. See Singleton v. Bowen, 841 F.2d 710, 711 (7th Cir. 1988); Bowen v. Yuckert, 107 S.Ct. 2287, 2290-91 (1987). The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has summarized that test as follows:

The following steps are addressed in order: (1) Is the claimant presently unemployed? (2) Is the claimant's impairment "severe"? (3) Does the impairment meet or exceed one of a list of specific impairments? (4) Is the claimant unable to perform his or her former occupation? (5) Is the claimant unable to perform any other work within the economy? An affirmative answer leads either to the next step or, on steps 3 and 5, to a finding that the claimant is disabled. A negative answer at any point, other than step 3, stops the inquiry and leads to a determination that the claimant is not disabled.

Nelson v. Bowen, 855 F.2d 503, 504 n.2 (7th Cir. 1988); Zalewski v. Heckler, 760 F.2d 160, 162 n.2 (7th Cir. 1985); accord Halvorsen v. Heckler, 743 F.2d 1221 (7th Cir. 1984). From the nature of the ALJ's decision to deny benefits, it is clear that Step 5 was the determinative inquiry.

Plaintiff filed her applications for benefits on December 8, 2014, alleging disability beginning August 10, 2012 (Tr. 163-64). On behalf of SSA, the state disability determination service denied Plaintiff's applications initially and upon reconsideration (Tr. 65-85, 88-96, 98-104). On July 11, 2017, an SSA administrative law judge (ALJ) conducted a video hearing where Plaintiff appeared and testified (Tr. 37-64). She was represented by attorney Dale Starkes (Tr. 122). On May 17, 2018, ALJ Romona Scales issued a decision finding Plaintiff was not disabled as defined in the Social Security Act (Tr. 7-28).

In support of remand, Plaintiff asserts that she is unable to work due to the combined effects of multiple medical conditions that prevent her from consistently performing certain exertional and nonexertional tasks and from sustaining activity for adequate periods of time to perform a job to an employer's satisfaction. She is diagnosed with congestive heart failure (CHF), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), chronic sinusitis and allergies, migraines/chronic sinus headaches, obesity, and arthritis (Tr. 180, 190, 580). Her symptoms include headaches with nausea and sensitivity to light, sound, and smells; lightheadedness/dizziness; fatigue and tiredness; difficulty sleeping/nonrestorative sleep; edema; joint pain; and shortness of breath (Tr. 51-56,190, 202, 207, 235, 238, 293, 309-16, 331, 357, 403-04, 407-10, 459, 462, 489, 491, 502, 562-71, 577, 579, 583, 597, 632, 658). Pain, swelling, and other symptoms worsen "over the course of the day". Due to swelling in her lower extremities, Plaintiff must frequently elevate her legs (Tr. 54-58). The swelling in her handsprevents her from wearing her wedding ring, and her options for pain relief are limited by her heart condition (Tr. 55-58). Although she continues trying to care for her family and home, Plaintiff reported that at times, her medical conditions made it difficult for her to do such brief and routine tasks as "even going to the store or cleaning house" (Tr. 56-58,...