Phillips v. Soc. Sec. Admin.

1

DANIEL LEE PHILLIPS, Plaintiff, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant.

No. 2:20-cv-00039

United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Northeastern Division

August 17, 2022

ALISTAIR E. NEWBERN, MAGISTRATE JUDGE

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR., CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

I. Background

Plaintiff Daniel Lee Phillips filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (SSA) denying his application for disability insurance benefits (DIB) and supplemental security income (SSI) under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-434 (Doc. No. 1.) The Court referred this action to the Magistrate Judge to dispose of or recommend disposition of any pretrial motions under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B). (Doc. No. 4.) Phillips has filed a motion for judgment on the administrative record (Doc. No. 25-1), to which the Commissioner has responded in opposition (Doc. No. 27). Having considered the parties' arguments and the administrative record as a whole, and for the reasons that follow, the Magistrate Judge will recommend that Phillips's motion for judgment on the administrative record be granted, that the ALJ's decision be vacated and that this case be remanded for further administrative proceedings consistent with this Report and Recommendation.

A. Phillips's DIB and SSI Application

On January 8, 2018, Phillips applied for SSI and DIB, alleging that he had been disabled since May 1, 2016, because of four heart attacks, quadruple bypass surgery, angina, and depression. (AR 80, 95, 287.)^[1] The Commissioner denied Phillips's application initially and on reconsideration.^[2] (AR 109-12.) At Phillips's request, an administrative law judge (ALJ) held a hearing on April 10, 2019. (AR 32-63, 159-64.) Phillips appeared with counsel and testified. (AR 32, 36-57.) The ALJ also heard testimony from Edward Smith, a vocational expert. (AR 5761.)

B. The ALJ's Findings

On July 29, 2019, the ALJ issued a written decision finding that Phillips was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act and denying his claims for SSI and DIB. (AR 1526.) The ALJ made the following enumerated findings:

1. The claimant meets the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act through December 31, 2020.

2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since February 20, 2018, the alleged onset date.

* * *

3. The claimant has the following severe impairments: coronary artery disease, status-post myocardial infarction, and recurrent arrhythmias.

* * * 4. The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of one of the listed impartments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1.

* * *

5. After careful consideration of the entire record, I find that the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b). The claimant can lift and carry, push and pull 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently. With normal breaks in an eighthour day, he can sit for six hours, and stand and/or walk for six hours; can occasionally climb ladders, ropes, scaffolds, ramps and stairs; and can tolerate occasional exposure to extreme heat and dangerous hazards, such as unprotected heights, and moving machinery.

* * *

6. The claimant is capable of performing past relevant work as an assistant store manager. This work does not require the performance of work-related activities precluded by the claimant's residual functional capacity.

* * *

7. The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, from February 20, 2018, through the date of this decision.

(AR 18-26). The Social Security Appeals Council denied Phillips's request for review on June 8, 2020, making the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Commissioner. (AR 1-3.)

C. Appeal Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)

Phillips filed this action for review of the ALJ's decision on July 15, 2020 (Doc. No. 1), and this Court has jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Phillips argues that the ALJ wrongly evaluated the medical opinion evidence, did not appropriately consider the vocational expert's testimony, and failed to properly evaluate Phillips's subjective pain or mention additional physical impairments. (Doc. No. 25-1.) The Commissioner responds that the ALJ followed applicable regulations and that the ALJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence. (Doc. No. 27.) Phillips did not file a reply.

D. Review of the Record

The ALJ and the parties have thoroughly described and discussed the medical and testimonial evidence in the administrative record. Accordingly, the Court will discuss those matters only to the extent necessary to analyze the parties' arguments.

II. Legal Standards

A. Standard of Review

This Court's review of an ALJ's decision is limited to determining (1) whether the ALJ's findings are supported by substantial evidence and (2) whether the ALJ applied the correct legal standards. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Miller v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 811 F.3d 825, 833 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting Blakley v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399, 405 (6th Cir. 2009)). “Under the substantial-evidence standard, a court looks to an existing administrative record and asks whether it contains ‘sufficien[t] evidence' to support the agency's factual determinations.” Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S.Ct. 1148, 1154 (2019) (alteration in original) (quoting Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance but “more than a mere scintilla” and means “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. (quoting Consol. Edison Co., 305 U.S. at 229); see also Gentry v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 741 F.3d 708, 722 (6th Cir. 2014) (same). Further, “[t]he Social Security Administration has established rules for how an ALJ must evaluate a disability claim and has made promises to disability applicants as to how their claims and medical evidence will be reviewed.” Gentry, 741 F.3d at 723. Where an ALJ fails to follow those rules or regulations, “we find a lack of substantial evidence, ‘even where the conclusion of the ALJ may be justified based upon the record.'” Miller, 811 F.3d at 833 (quoting Gentry, 741 F.3d at 722).

B. Determining Disability at the Administrative Level

DIB and SSI benefits are available to individuals who are disabled, which is defined in this context as an “inability 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. § 423(d)(1)(A); see Colvin v. Barnhart, 475 F.3d 727, 730 (6th Cir. 2007) (explaining that this definition applies in the DIB and SSI contexts).

ALJs must employ a “five-step sequential evaluation process” to determine whether a claimant is disabled, proceeding through each step until a determination can be reached. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4). For purposes of this case, the regulations governing disability determination for DIB and SSI benefits are identical. See Colvin, 475 F.3d at 730 (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920). At step one, the ALJ considers the claimant's work activity. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i), 416.920(a)(4)(i). “[I]f the claimant is performing substantial gainful activity, then the claimant is not disabled.” Miller, 811 F.3d at 834 n.6. At step two, the ALJ determines whether the claimant suffers from “a severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment” or “combination of impairments” that meets the 12-month durational requirement. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii). “If the claimant does not have a severe impairment or combination of impairments [that meets the durational requirement], then the claimant is not disabled.” Miller, 811 F.3d at 834 n.6. At step three, the ALJ considers whether the claimant's medical impairment or impairments appear on a list maintained by the SSA that “identifies and defines impairments that are of sufficient severity as to prevent any gainful activity.” Combs v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 459 F.3d 640, 643 (6th Cir. 2006); see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(a)(4)(iii). “If the claimant's impairment meets or equals one of the listings, then the ALJ will find the claimant disabled.” Miller, 811 F.3d at 834 n.6. If not, the ALJ proceeds to step four. Combs, 459 F.3d at 643; see also Walker v. Berryhill, No. 3:16-1231, 2017 WL 6492621, at *3 (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 19, 2017) (explaining that “[a] claimant is not required to show the existence of a listed impairment in order to be found disabled, but such showing results in an automatic finding of disability and ends the inquiry”), report and recommendation adopted, 2018 WL 305748 (M.D. Tenn. Jan. 5, 2018).

At step four, the ALJ evaluates the claimant's past relevant work and “‘residual functional capacity,' defined as ‘the most [the claimant] can still do despite [his] limitations.'” Combs, 459 F.3d at 643 (first alterations in original) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1)); see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), 416.920(a)(4)(iv). Past work is relevant to this analysis if the claimant performed the work within the past 15 years, the work qualifies as substantial gainful activity, and the work lasted long enough for the claimant to learn how to do it. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1560(b)(1), 416.960(b)(1). If the claimant's residual functional capacity (RFC) permits [him] to perform past relevant work [he] is not disabled. Combs, 459...