Saunders v. Saul

MARIA A. SAUNDERS, Plaintiff, v. ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

Civil Case No. 18-2492 (RJL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

August 5, 2020

MEMORANDUM OPINION

[Dkt. ##13, 16]

Plaintiff Maria A. Saunders ("plaintiff") brings this action against defendant Andrew Saul, the Commissioner of Social Security ("defendant" or "Commissioner"), seeking reversal under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner's final decision denying her applications for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. Plaintiff alleges that the Commissioner's decision was not supported by substantial evidence. Before the Court is plaintiff's Motion for Judgment of Reversal [Dkt. #13] and defendant's Motion for Judgment of Affirmance [Dkt. #16]. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES plaintiff's motion and GRANTS defendant's motion.

BACKGROUND

In January 2014, when the events giving rise to this case occurred, plaintiff Maria A. Saunders was a 52-year-old single woman living with her children in Washington, D.C. Administrative Record ("A.R.") at 296, 683. She had completed two years of college in 1980. A.R. at 339. Since 2005, she had worked as a bus attendant for the D.C. Public Schools system, where she helped children with special needs to board and exit the school bus each day. A.R. at 44, 308-09, 339. She was diagnosed as obese, as she was 5 feet, 7 inches tall and weighed around 260 pounds. A.R. at 527, 531. She had a history of back pain, see, e.g., A.R. at 483, 492, 533, 559, 754, 760, as well as surgery on her left knee in 2008, A.R. at 465-67, 472, and a hernia repair in 2009, A.R. at 530.

On January 7, 2014, plaintiff was looking for the school bus at the bus terminal when she slipped and fell on some ice, injuring her left hip and lower back. A.R. at 658, 683. Experiencing significant pain, plaintiff went to Providence Hospital that day and was treated for contusion, or deep bruising. A.R. at 667, 684, 765. An x-ray of her left hip showed "mild ossification of the ligamentous insertions within the pelvis and trochanters." A.R. at 676. The doctors prescribed cyclobenzaprine and ibuprofen and instructed her to apply heat to the affected area. A.R. at 662.

On January 10, 2014, plaintiff visited her primary care physician Dr. Edwin Williams for complaints of continued back and hip pain. A.R. at 765. Dr. Williams noted "[l]imited [range of motion] with lying on exam table and . . . limited [range of motion] with flexion of [left] knee." A.R. at 766. On January 24, 2014, plaintiff visited Dr. Melvin Gerald for "left upper back and left hip pain w[ith] walking." A.R. at 768. On January 29, 2014, plaintiff saw Dr. Williams again for "pain in her back and hip," and she requested to go to physical therapy. A.R. at 770. Dr. Williams assessed that plaintiff had recovered "full [range of motion] of [her] legs" but still had pain in her left hip with flexion. A.R. at 771. On January 31, 2014, plaintiff met with neurosurgeon Dr. Bryan Mason, whorecommended physical therapy, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and muscle relaxers. A.R. at 732.

Plaintiff tried different treatment options throughout 2014, to varying degrees of clinical success. For her pain, plaintiff's doctors recommended that she use a heating pad and continued to prescribe cyclobenzaprine and ibuprofen. A.R. at 768, 770. However, plaintiff continued to report that her pain was very high or at a "9/10" or "10/10" on the pain scale. A.R. at 779, 859, 909. While plaintiff attempted to complete physical therapy, A.R. at 909-10, she reported that it did not help and was very painful, A.R. at 777, 953. She continued visiting Dr. Williams and Dr. Gerald for back and hip pain approximately once per month for much of 2014. A.R. at 768, 770, 772, 774, 776, 779, 781, 784. During this period, multiple medical professionals signed "work release" letters advising that she could not yet return to work. A.R. at 819-27. For most of this time, though, plaintiff's doctors reported that she had full range of motion in her back, hips, and legs, with some pain during certain movements. See, e.g., A.R. at 771.

On June 12, 2014 and July 9, 2014, plaintiff filed applications for Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB") and Supplemental Security Income ("SSI"), respectively, claiming that she was disabled due to her fall on January 7, 2014. A.R. at 231-48. Meanwhile, Plaintiff's application with the D.C. Office of Risk Management for worker's compensation was granted on June 23, 2014. Pl.'s Mot. for J. of Reversal, Notice of Determination Regarding Awarding Worker Compensation Benefits (June 23, 2014) [Dkt. #13-2].

During this time, plaintiff continued to be evaluated by her primary care doctor as well as by various specialists and independent medical examiners in connection with her disability claims. At a visit on June 25, 2014, Dr. Williams advised that plaintiff should get up from a seated position every 2 hours, should only occasionally lift up to 5 pounds, and would likely be absent from work more than 3 times per month due to her impairments. A.R. at 708-11. On June 27, 2014, however, she visited orthopedic specialist Dr. Peter Lavine, who assessed that her gait was normal and that her complaints of pain were "excessively dramatic." A.R. at 924-25. On November 17, 2014, plaintiff saw rheumatology specialist Dr. Eugene Miknowski, who found that plaintiff had a "normal" gait, intact sensation, and full muscle and grip strength, but also had "decreased [range of motion] of lumbar spine and both hips." A.R. at 812-13. On November 26, 2014, Dr. Walter Goo performed a consultative examination for plaintiff's disability claim and noted that plaintiff suffered from severe pain, obesity, hypertension, and diabetes. A.R. at 80. He assessed her to have symmetrical reflexes, normal gait, decreased range of motion in the lumbar spine and both hips, and mild to moderate degenerative changes in her spine and hips. A.R. at 80-83. On December 31, 2014, plaintiff saw neurologist Dr. Joseph Liberman, who determined that plaintiff had "marked limitation of lumbar movement" and a "slow and antalgic gait"; he suggested that plaintiff might have "posttraumatic myofascial pain syndrome" as a result of her January 2014 fall. A.R. at 941.

On January 22, 2015, Dr. Jason Brokaw saw plaintiff for an independent medical examination and found that plaintiff exhibited "very strange behavior" including "obvious symptom magnification": he reported that she "self limit[ed] lumbar range of motion" andthat he observed her range of motion to be "greater during other time periods" when he was not explicitly examining her. A.R. at 859-60. On February 2, April 13, and July 6, 2015, Dr. Williams found no range of motion constraints. A.R. at 1073-76, 1077-78, 1079-80. However, on October 21, 2015, Dr. Liberman evaluated plaintiff and determined that she had not improved or responded to any treatment: he noted normal muscle strength and intact sensation and reflexes, but limited range of motion in her lumbar spine. A.R. at 1151-52. He reaffirmed these findings at evaluations in February 2017 and June 2017. A.R. at 1143-44, 1146-47. On August 10, 2017, Dr. Stanley Rothschild saw plaintiff for an independent medical examination and reviewed the reports of plaintiff's prior medical examinations and treatments. A.R. at 1037-41. He explained that during his examination, plaintiff was not cooperative, exhibited strange behavior that he felt was "not related to the injury," and walked normally most of the time, leading him to the conclusion that she exhibited symptom magnification. A.R. at 1039-41.

Plaintiff's DIB and SSI claims were denied first on December 3, 2014, A.R. at 142-52, and again on reconsideration on August 25, 2015, A.R. at 155-66. Plaintiff then requested review by an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"), who held a hearing on November 30, 2017 at which both plaintiff and vocational expert Quintin Boston testified. A.R. at 31-67, 189. Three days later, the ALJ denied plaintiff's claims on the basis that plaintiff's impairments did not prevent her from performing light work: the ALJ reasoned that plaintiff's impairments could not reasonably be expected to cause the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the symptoms of which plaintiff complained. A.R. at 15-23. On September 18, 2018, the Appeals Council denied review. A.R. at 1-6.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

To qualify for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income respectively under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, a claimant must establish that she is "disabled." 42 U.S.C. §§ 423, 1382. A "disability" is the "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." Id. § 423(d)(1)(A).

The ALJ conducts a five-step sequential evaluation process to determine if a claimant suffers from a "disability." The burden of proof is on the claimant to satisfy the first four steps. Stankiewicz v. Sullivan, 901 F.2d 131, 133 (D.C. Cir. 1990). At step one, the claimant must show that she is not presently engaged in "substantial gainful activity." 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(b), 416.920(b). If the ALJ determines the claimant is not gainfully employed, the claimant must show at step two that she has a "severe impairment" that "significantly limits [her] . . . ability to do basic work activities." Id. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). If the ALJ determines the claimant has a severe impairment, the ALJ must determine at step three whether the claimant's impairment "meets or equals" an impairment listed in the regulations. Id. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d). If it does, the claimant "is deemed disabled and the inquiry is at an end." Butler v. Barnhart, 353 F.3d 992, 997 (D.C. Cir. 2004); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d...