Olmeda v. Astrue

16 F.Supp.3d 23

Carlos A. OLMEDA, Plaintiff

v.Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

Civil No. 12–1894(JA).

United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico.

Signed April 15, 2014

Affirmed. Salvador Medina–De–La–Cruz, Salvador Medina De La Cruz Law Office, San Juan, PR, for Plaintiff.

Ginette L. Milanes, U.S. Attorney's Office, San Juan, PR, for Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

JUSTO ARENAS, United States Magistrate Judge.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On October 26, 2012, plaintiff filed this petition for judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security which denied his application for a period of disability and Social Security disability insurance benefits. (Docket No. 1). He had filed an application for benefits on October 28, 2010 alleging disability due to sleep apnea, depression, severe high blood pressure, a back injury, and early stages of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). (Tr. at 237–39).

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the court is empowered to affirm, modify, reverse or remand the decision of the Commissioner, based upon the pleadings and transcript of the record. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). In reviewing a Social Security decision, the factual findings of the Commissioner shall be conclusive if supported by “substantial evidence” in the record. See Ortiz v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 955 F.2d 765, 769 (1st Cir.1991) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)). “Substantial evidence” is more than a “mere scintilla,” see Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971), in other words, it is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” See id.; also see Currier v. Sec'y of Health, Education and Welfare, 612 F.2d 594, 597 (1st Cir.1980); Taylor v. Astrue, 899 F.Supp.2d 83, 85 (D.Mass.2012). In reaching the final decision, it is the Commissioner's responsibility to determine issues of credibility and to draw inferences from the evidence in the record. See Rodriguez v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 647 F.2d 218, 222 (1st Cir.1981).

Plaintiff has the burden of proving that he has become disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. See Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146, 107 S.Ct. 2287, 96 L.Ed.2d 119 (1987); Rivera–Tufino v. Commissioner of Social Sec., 731 F.Supp.2d 210, 212–13 (D.P.R.2010). A finding of disability requires that plaintiff be unable to perform any substantial gainful activity or work because of a medical condition which has lasted or which can be expected to last for a continuous period of at least twelve months. See 42 U.S.C. § 416(i)(1). In general terms, evidence of a physical or mental impairment or a combination of both is insufficient for the Commissioner to award benefits. There must be a causal relationship between such impairment or impairments and plaintiff's inability to perform substantial gainful activity. See McDonald v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 795 F.2d 1118, 1120 (1st Cir.1986). Partial disability does not qualify a claimant for benefits. See Rodríguez v. Celebrezze, 349 F.2d 494, 496 (1st Cir.1965).

The only issue for the court to determine is whether the final decision that plaintiff is not under a disability is supported by substantial evidence in the record when looking at such record as a whole. In order to be entitled to such benefits, plaintiff must establish that he was disabled under the Act at any time on or before June 28, 2012, the date of the Commissioner's final decision. Plaintiff continues to meet the earnings requirements for disability benefits under the Social Security Act until December 31, 2016 but not after that date. See Evangelista v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 826 F.2d 136, 140 n. 3 (1st Cir.1987).

After evaluating the evidence of record, Administrative Law Judge Harold Granville entered the following findings on June 28, 2012:

1. The claimant meets the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act through December 31, 2016.

2. The claimant has not engage in substantial gainful activity since July 1, 2010, the alleged disability onset date (20 C.F.R. § 404.1571 et seq.).

3. The claimant has the following severe impairments: cervical and lumbar degenerative disc disease, sleep apnea, high blood pressure, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c)).

4. The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 404.1525 and 404.1526).

5. After careful consideration of the entire record, the undersigned finds that the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform light work as defined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(b), except that he has to avoid skilled and semiskilled functions. He is capable of unskilled work avoiding environmental hazards and not dealing with the public.

6. The claimant is unable to perform his past relevant work (20 C.F.R. § 404.1565).

7. The claimant was born on September 1, 1966 and was 43 years old, which is defined as a younger individual age 18–49, on the alleged disability onset date (20 C.F.R. § 404.1563).

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

9. Transferability of skills is not material to the determination of disability because applying the Medical–Vocational Rules directly supports a finding of “not disabled,” whether or not the claimant has transferable job skills (See SSR 82–41 and 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2).

10. Considering the claimant's age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity, there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that the claimant can perform (20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1569 and 404.1569(a)).

11. The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, from July 1, 2010 through the date of this decision. (20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g)).

Tr. at 13–22.

The administrative law judge ended the sequential inquiry at step five. At this level, it has already been determined that the claimant cannot perform any work he has performed in the past due to a severe impairment or combination of impairments. The inquiry requires a consideration of the claimant's residual functional capacity as well as the claimant's age, education, and past work experience to see if the claimant can do other work. If the claimant cannot, a finding of disability will follow. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f). At step five, the Commissioner bears the burden of determining that significant jobs exist in the national economy which plaintiff can perform given the above factors. See Freeman v. Barnhart, 274 F.3d 606, 608 (1st Cir.2001); Nguyen v. Chater, 172 F.3d 31 (1st Cir.1999); Lancelotta v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 806 F.2d 284 (1st Cir.1986); Vázquez v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 683 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir.1982); Tassel v. Astrue, 882 F.Supp.2d 143, 146 (D.Me.2012); Rodriguez–Gonzalez v. Astrue, 854 F.Supp.2d 176, 180 (D.P.R.2012).

Plaintiff asked the Appeals Council to review the final decision. The Appeals Council denied such a request on September 1, 2012. (Tr. at 1–3).

II. ARGUMENT

On July 16, 2013, plaintiff filed a memorandum of law in the present case seeking reversal of the final decision. (Docket No. 19). Defendant filed a memorandum in support of the final decision on August 15, 2013 (Docket No. 20). Plaintiff argues in his memorandum of law that the administrative law judge deployed the incorrect legal standard in reaching the final decision, disregarding his own examining psychiatric consultant's report, as well as failing to ask the vocational expert the correct hypothetical questions at the administrative hearing. The administrative law judge is also charged with not explaining the weight given to each medical opinion, and not giving good reasons for the weight accorded to a treating source's opinion, without which a reviewing court, such as this one, cannot assess whether the final decision is supported by substantial evidence. See e.g. Vazquez–Rivera v. Commissioner of Social Sec., 943 F.Supp.2d 300, 310 (D.P.R.2013), citing Polanco–Quinones v. Astrue, 477 Fed.Appx. 745, 746 (1st Cir.2012); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); also see Hernandez v. Commissioner of Social Sec., 989 F.Supp.2d 202, 210–11, 2013 WL 5674498 (Oct. 17, 2013) at *7.

The defendant argues to the contrary, adding that plaintiff has focused on the final decision relating to the mental residual functional capacity and does not take issue with the administrative law judge's assessment of plaintiff's physical residual functional capacity. The defendant argues that the administrative law judge's findings as to mental residual functional capacity are well supported by the opinions of experts in Social Security evaluations, and other detailed evidence of record. Similarly, the testimony of the vocational expert at the administrative hearing also lends support to that final decision.

III. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS

At the administrative hearing held in Mayaguez, Puerto Rico on June 13, 2012, plaintiff was well represented by attorney Arlene Diaz. Plaintiff testified that his medical conditions began during active military duty when he hurt his back, resulting in numbness down his left leg. He also experiences depressive and anxiety episodes and he described irregular sleeping habits. He is treated on a monthly basis by Dr. Japhet Gaztambide Montes, psychiatrist, in Mayaguez whom he has gone to for a second opinion. (Tr. at 32). He receives treatment for a lumbar condition at the Veterans Hospital roughly every two months, by Dr. Olga Maldonado. (Tr. at 32–33). He experiences sharp jabs while walking four or five times a week, and takes medication daily. The pain varies in intensity.

Plaintiff stated that his Military Occupational...