Pye v. Saul

TERRY PYE v. ANDREW M. SAUL Commissioner of Social Security

No. 1:20-cv-0010

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE COLUMBIA DIVISION

February 2, 2021

To: The Honorable William L. Campbell, Jr., District Judge

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) to obtain judicial review of the final decision of the Social Security Administration ("Commissioner" or "Defendant") denying Plaintiff's claim for Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB") and Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") as provided under Titles II and XVI, respectively, of the Social Security Act. The case is currently pending on Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the administrative record (Docket Entry ("DE") 15), to which Defendant has filed a response. (DE 18.) Plaintiff has also filed a reply to Defendant's response. (DE 20.) This matter has been referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) for initial consideration and a Report and Recommendation. (DE 4.)

Upon review of the administrative record as a whole and consideration of the parties' filings, the undersigned Magistrate Judge respectfully recommends that Plaintiff's motion (DE 15) be DENIED.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff filed an application for SSI on December 21, 2016 and an application for DIB on January 4, 2017. (See Transcript of the Administrative Record (DE 13) at 75-76.)¹ He alleged a disability onset date of October 15, 2015 and asserted that he was unable to work because of heart failure, diabetes, vision problems, and issues with memory and concentration. (AR 77.) Plaintiff's applications were denied initially and upon reconsideration. (AR 75-76, 107-10.) Pursuant to his request for a hearing before an administrative law judge ("ALJ"), Plaintiff appeared and testified at a hearing before ALJ Dennis Reap on August 3, 2018. (AR 30.) The ALJ denied the claim on November 16, 2018. (AR 13-15.) The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review of the ALJ's decision on December 20, 2019 (AR 2-5), thereby making the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Commissioner. Plaintiff subsequently filed the instant action and the Court has jurisdiction. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

II. THE ALJ FINDINGS

The ALJ's unfavorable decision included the following enumerated findings:

1. The claimant meets the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act through September 30, 2019.

2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since October 15, 2015, the alleged onset date (20 CFR 404.1571 et seq., and 416.971 et seq.).

3. The claimant has the following severe impairments: cardiomyopathy (20 CFR 404.1520(c) and 416.920(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 CFR part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 CFR 404.1520(d), 404.1525, 404.1526, 416.920(d), 416.925 and 416.926).

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 CFR 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b) except he can frequently balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, crawl, and climb ramps and stairs but can never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds. He must avoid concentrated exposure to extreme cold, extreme heat, and workplace hazards.

6. The claimant is unable to perform any past relevant work (20 CFR 404.1565 and 416.965).

7. The claimant was born on December 18, 1964 and was 50 years old, which is defined as an individual closely approaching advanced age, on the alleged disability onset date (20 CFR 404.1563 and 416.963).

8. The claimant has a marginal education and is able to communicate in English (20 CFR 404.1564 and 416.964).

9. Transferability of job skills is not an issue because the claimant does not have past relevant work (20 CFR 404.1568 and 416.968).

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 CFR 404.1569, 404.1569a, 416.969, and 416.969a).

11. The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, from October 15, 2015, through the date of this decision (20 CFR 404.1520(g) and 416.920(g)).

(AR 18-24.)

III. REVIEW OF THE RECORD

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

IV. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

A. Standard of Review

The determination of disability under the Act is an administrative decision. The only questions before this Court upon judicial review are: (i) whether the decision of the Commissioneris supported by substantial evidence, and (ii) whether the Commissioner made legal errors in the process of reaching the decision. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Substantial evidence is defined "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Hargett v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 964 F.3d 546, 551 (6th Cir. 2020) (internal citations omitted). If substantial evidence supports the ALJ's decision, that decision must be affirmed "even if there is substantial evidence in the record that would have supported an opposite conclusion." Blakley v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399, 406 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Key v. Callahan, 109 F.3d 270, 273 (6th Cir. 1997)). Put another way, the ALJ's decision must be affirmed if his or her "findings and inferences are reasonably drawn from the record or supported by substantial evidence even if that evidence could support a contrary decision." Wright-Hines v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 597 F.3d 392, 395 (6th Cir. 2010).

The Commissioner utilizes a five-step sequential evaluation process to determine whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a), 416.920(a). If the issue of disability can be resolved at any point during the evaluation, the ALJ does not proceed to the next step and the claim is not reviewed further. Id. First, if the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity, he is not disabled. Id. Second, the claimant is not disabled if he does not have a severe medically determinable impairment that meets the 12-month durational requirements. Id. Third, the claimant is presumed disabled if he suffers from a listed impairment, or its equivalent, for the proper duration. Id. Fourth, the claimant is not disabled if, based on his residual functional capacity ("RFC"), he can perform past relevant work. Id. Fifth, if the claimant can adjust to other work based on his RFC, age, education, and work experience, he is not disabled. Id. The claimant bears the burden of proof through the first four steps, while the burden shifts to the Commissioner atstep five. Johnson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 652 F.3d 646, 651 (6th Cir. 2011) (citing Wilson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 548 (6th Cir. 2004)).

The Court's review of the Commissioner's decision is limited to the record made during the administrative hearing process. Jones v. Berryhill, 392 F. Supp. 3d 831, 843 (M.D. Tenn. 2019) (citing Jones v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 945 F.2d 1365, 1369 (6th Cir. 1991)). A reviewing court is not permitted to try the case de novo, resolve conflicts in evidence, or decide questions of credibility. Emard v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 953 F.3d 844, 849 (6th Cir. 2020) (citing Garner v. Heckler, 745 F.2d 383, 387 (6th Cir. 1984)).

B. The ALJ's Five -Step Evaluation of Plaintiff

In the instant case, the ALJ resolved the Plaintiff's claim at step five of the five-step process. The ALJ found that Plaintiff met the first two steps, but found at step three that Plaintiff was not presumptively disabled because he did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. At step four, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was unable to perform any past relevant work. At step five, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff's RFC allowed him to perform light work with express limitations to account for his severe impairments, and that considering his age, education, work experience, and RFC, there were jobs that existed in significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform (AR 18-24.)

C. Plaintiff's Assertions of Error

Plaintiff presents three assertions of error: (1) that the ALJ failed to properly consider the opinion of his treating physician; (2) that the ALJ failed to properly weigh Plaintiff's allegations regarding the severity of his symptoms; and (3) that the ALJ relied on vocational expert testimony that did not adequately address all of Plaintiff's impairments. (DE 15-1 at 9.) Plaintiff thereforerequests that this case be reversed and/or remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for additional consideration. (Id. at 18-19.)

Sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) states the following:

The court shall have power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing.

If the case contains an adequate record, "the [Commissioner's] decision denying benefits can be reversed and benefits awarded if the decision is clearly erroneous, proof of disability is overwhelming, or proof of disability is strong and evidence to the contrary is lacking." Hudson-Kane v. Berryhill, 247 F. Supp. 3d 908, 914 (M.D. Tenn. 2017) (quoting Mowery v. Heckler, 771 F.2d 966, 973 (6th Cir. 1985)). However, benefits may be awarded immediately "only if all essential factual issues have been resolved and the record adequately establishes a plaintiff's entitlement to benefits." Holtman v. Saul, 441 F. Supp. 3d 586, 609 (M.D....