Negron v. Berryhill, Civil Action No. 17-cv-11878-IT

MARIA NEGRON, Plaintiff, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 17-cv-11878-IT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

March 31, 2019

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

TALWANI, D.J.

I. Background

Plaintiff, Maria Negron, proceeding pro se, seeks reversal of the decision by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying her Social Security disability benefits for the years 2014 to 2017. Compl. [#1]; Mot. Order Reversing Decision Comm'r [#21]. Defendant, Acting Commissioner Nancy A. Berryhill, asks this court to affirm the decision. Mot. Order Affirming Decision Comm'r [#26]. Because Plaintiff previously sought, and was denied, review by the Appeals Council, the decision of the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") is the final decision of the Commissioner. See Notice of Appeals Council Action, Social Security Administration Record of Proceedings ("Rec.") 2 [#15-2].

II. Standard

Upon a motion for review of a final decision of the Commissioner, a district court may enter "a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing." 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). A court may not disturb the Commissioner's findings where they are supported by substantial evidence and the Commissioner has applied the correct legal standard. Ward v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 211 F.3d 652, 655 (1st Cir. 2000). Evidence is substantial where "a reasonable mind, reviewing the evidence in the record as a whole, could accept it as adequate to support a conclusion." Rodriguez v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 647 F.2d 218, 222 (1st Cir. 1981). A district court may review the ALJ decision "solely on the evidence presented to the ALJ," Mills v. Apfel, 244 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2001). The court may also remand the case for further proceedings and order that the evidence be added to the record upon a finding that new evidence is material and there is good cause for failure to incorporate such evidence into the record previously. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). However, remand is only appropriate when the court determines that "further evidence is necessary to develop the facts of the case fully, that such evidence is not cumulative, and that consideration of it is essential to a fair hearing." Evangelista v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 826 F.2d 136, 139 (1st Cir. 1987).

III. Procedural History

Ms. Negron filed a Title II application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits on June 16, 2014. See ALJ Hearing Decision, Rec. 9 [#15-2]. The claim was denied initially in August 2014, and again upon reconsideration in November 2014. Id. Ms. Negron requested a hearing, which was held before an ALJ on December 1, 2015. Id. The ALJ issued his decision on January 28, 2016. Id. at 21 [#15-2]. Ms. Negron subsequently sought review of the ALJ's decision from the Appeals Council. See Notice of Appeals Council Action, Rec. 1 [#15-2]. The Appeals Council denied her request for review on August 15, 2017. Id. at 3-5. Subsequently, Ms. Negron filed a complaint in this court on October 12, 2017. Compl. [#1].

IV. Analysis

In her Motion for Order Reversing Decision of Commissioner [#21-1], Plaintiff requests that the court reconsider her medical evidence, arguing that "[u]nder the SSA guidelines I have the following musculoskeletal problems, neurological disorders, and mental disorders," which makes it difficult to function "the way I was able to do in the [past]." Id. at 2. She also states that she incorrectly filled out her Social Security questionnaire, and that questionnaires filled out by her mental health provider and primary physician were not provided prior to Plaintiff's hearing before the ALJ. Id. at 1.

Ms. Negron further argues, in her Response to Defendant's Motion for Order Affirming Decision of Commissioner [#30], that the ALJ's decision is not supported by substantial evidence, and the ALJ wrongfully found that she did not have an impairment that meets 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appx. 1. She states that she has ongoing symptoms of chronic neck, back, arm, and joint pain, along with tingling, numbness, and weakness of limbs, as well as depression, poor concentration, and panic attacks, and that she suffers from chronic fatigue and fibromyalgia. Ms. Negron argues in her Response that her impairments are listed in the regulations (in sections relating to the musculoskeletal system, neurological disorders, mental disorders, and immune system disorders). Ms. Negron also asserts that the ALJ relied upon a vocational expert who failed to consider all physical requirements needed to perform certain jobs. Resp. to Def. Mot. Order Affirming Decision Comm'r 2 [#30]. In support, Ms. Negron submitted to the court various exhibits. See generally, Exs. [#30-1].

Because Ms. Negron requests review of the ALJ's decision and offers new evidence, the court will treat her Motion for Order Reversing Decision of Commissioner as both a motion forreview of the Commissioner's decision and a motion to remand for consideration of new evidence.

A. Motion for Review of a Final Decision of the Commissioner

In analyzing Ms. Negron's motion first as a motion for review of a final decision, the court considers only the evidence that is in the record. "Judicial review of a Social Security claim is limited to determining whether the ALJ used the proper legal standards and found facts upon the proper quantum of evidence." Ward v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 211 F.3d 652, 655 (1st Cir. 2000).

To determine whether an individual is disabled, the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") goes through a five-step sequential evaluation process. Here, at step one, the ALJ found that Ms. Negron had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since June 18, 2014, the alleged onset date. See ALJ Hearing Decision, Rec. 11 [#15-2]. At step two, the ALJ considered whether Ms. Negron has a '"medically determinable impairment' that is 'severe' or a combination of impairments that is 'severe.'" Id. at 10. The ALJ found that Ms. Negron suffered from several severe mental and physical impairments, including bilateral symptoms of carpal tunnel syndrome, "possible" radiculopathy, dysthymic disorder, panic disorder, attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder ("ADHD"), and cannabis abuse. Id. at 11. However, the ALJ concluded that the record did not support a finding of a medically determinable impairment as to the "alleged fibromyalgia, left elbow nerve entrapment, or obsessive-compulsive disorder." Id. at 12.

The court construes Ms. Negron's contentions regarding her abilities and symptoms in her Response to Defendant's Motion for Order Affirming Decision of Commissioner [#30] and her Motion for Order Reversing Decision of Commissioner [#21] as attempting to address this step of the ALJ's analysis. As discussed above, the ALJ did find that Ms. Negron had severalsevere impairments, based on the evidence in the record and the limitations these impairments impose on Ms. Negron's abilities to perform basic work. See ALJ Hearing Decision, Rec. 11 [#15-2]. However, the ALJ did not find that Ms. Negron had all the impairments she alleged. With respect to the impairments that the ALJ rejected - three surgical procedures, fibromyalgia, left elbow nerve entrapment, and obsessive-compulsive disorder - the ALJ found that the record "does not contain sufficient objective medical evidence to confirm the presence of medically determinable impairments consistent with the claimant's allegations." See id. at 12 [#15-2]. With respect to fibromyalgia, the ALJ also found that Ms. Negron's case file did not contain the additional medical documentation required by Social Security Ruling 12-2p in order to make a finding of a medically determinable impairment. Id. Without minimizing Ms. Negron's own experience of pain, the court agrees that "plaintiff's affirmation that she experienced pain does not undermine the ALJ's step-two determination because the ALJ acknowledged the plaintiff's pain disorder to be severe, and the plaintiff has not explained how her severe pain disorder resulted in greater limitations than those identified by the ALJ [ . . . ]." Mem. in Support of Def. Mot. Order Affirming Decision Comm'r 2 [#27].

Because the ALJ found that Ms. Negron has a severe impairment, he considered, at step three, whether the claimant's impairment or combination of impairments is of a severity to meet or medically equal the criteria of an impairment listed in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appx. 1. Here, the ALJ concluded that the severity of Ms. Negron's symptoms did not meet or medically equal the criteria of an impairment listed in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appx. 1. See ALJ Hearing Decision 12 [#15-2]. Ms. Negron asserts that "[t]he ALJ's decision states that I did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met one of the listed impairments . . . Idon't understand why I don't meet the impairments, when my impairments are listed" in the regulations. See Resp. to Def. Mot. Order Affirming Decision Comm'r 2 [#30].

The issue at step three is whether that impairment is of such a severity that no further residual function capacity determination need be made. While Ms. Negron's Motion argues her impairments are listed, she does not provide "substantive argument indicating how" she meets the severity of impairments as listed in Appendix 1. See Torres v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 870 F.2d 742, 745 (1st Cir. 1989). After carefully considering her mental and physical impairments, the ALJ concluded that Ms. Negron's symptoms, taken together or individually, are not of a severity listed by the criteria. See ALJ Hearing Decision 12 [#15-2]. For instance, the ALJ examined the criteria of section 1.02 regarding dysfunction of a major joint and found that no "treating or examining physician has proffered findings that are equivalent in severity to the criteria of these or any other listed impairments." Id. at 12. Likewise,...