Trapp v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

1

AMY TRAPP, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

No. 1:22-cv-00042

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

October 26, 2023

TO THE HONORABLE WILLIAM L. CAMPBELL, JR., DISTRICT JUDGE.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

BARBARA D. HOLMES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

Plaintiff Amy Trapp filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to obtain judicial review of the final decision of the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) denying her supplemental security income (“SSI”) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act (the “Act”). The case is currently pending on Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the administrative record (Docket No 14),0F^[1] to which Defendant SSA has responded (Docket No. 16) and Plaintiff has replied (Docket No. 18). This matter has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) for initial consideration and a report and recommendation. (Docket No 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 (Docket No. 14) be DENIED.

I. INTRODUCTION

On January 31, 2019, Plaintiff protectively filed an application for SSI. (Transcript of the Administrative Record (Docket No. 9) at 261-76.)^[2] In her application, Plaintiff alleged disability beginning January 15, 2013, due to knee problems and arthritis of the shoulders. (AR 343.) The application was denied initially on June 28, 2019 (AR 116-21) and upon reconsideration on December 19, 2019 (AR 127-32). Following a telephone hearing held on August 25, 2021 (AR 34-71), the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied the claim on September 17, 2021. (AR 1727.) On August 31, 2022, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review (AR 1-4), thereby making the ALJ's decision the final decision of the SSA. Plaintiff then timely commenced this civil action, over which the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

II. THE ALJ'S FINDINGS

In the ALJ's September 17, 2021 unfavorable decision, the ALJ included the following enumerated findings:

1. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since January 31, 2019, the application date (20 CFR § 416.971 et seq.).

2. The claimant has the following severe impairments: major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), and asthma (20 CFR § 416.920(c)).

3. 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 416.920(d), 416.925 and 416.926).

4. After careful consideration of the entire record, I find that the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform medium work as defined in 20 CFR 416.967(c), except occasional exposure to fumes, odors, dust, gas and poor ventilation; occasional exposure to extreme heat, extreme cold and humidity; understand, remember and complete simple instructions and tasks; maintain attention concentration, persistence or pace for simple instructions and tasks; tolerate occasional contact with the public; and tolerate occasional changes in job duties.

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

6. The claimant was born on May 13, 1968 and was 50 years old, which is defined as an individual closely approaching advanced age, on the date the application was filed (20 CFR 416.963).

7. The claimant has at least a high school education (20 CFR 416.964).

8. Transferability of job skills is not material to the determination of disability because using the Medical-Vocational Rules as a framework supports a finding that the claimant is “not disabled,” whether or not the claimant has transferable job skills (See SSR 82-41 and 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2).

9. 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 416.969 and 416.969(a)).

10. The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, since January 31, 2019, the date the application was filed (20 CFR 416.920(g)).

(AR 19-27.)

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. DISCUSSIONS 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: (1) whether the SSA's decision is supported by substantial evidence, and (2) whether the proper legal criteria were applied to the SSA's decision. 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)). The SSA's decision must be affirmed if it is supported by substantial evidence, “even if there is substantial evidence in the record that would have supported an opposite conclusion.” Blakley, 581 F.3d at 406 (quoting Key v. Callahan, 109 F.3d 270, 273 (6th Cir. 1997)). Substantial evidence is defined as “more than a mere scintilla” and “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) (quoting Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)); Rogers v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234, 241 (6th Cir. 2007); LeMaster v. Weinberger, 533 F.2d 337, 339 (6th Cir. 1976) (quoting Sixth Circuit opinions adopting language substantially like that in Richardson).

The SSA 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, the claimant is not disabled if she is engaged in substantial gainful activity. Id. Second, the claimant is not disabled if she does not have a severe medically determinable impairment that meets the 12-month durational requirements. Id. Third, the claimant is presumed disabled if she suffers from a listed impairment, or its equivalent, for the proper duration. Id. Fourth, the claimant is not disabled if she can perform relevant past work based on her residual functional capacity (“RFC”), which is an assessment of “the most you [the claimant] can still do despite your limitations,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). Id. Fifth, if the claimant can adjust to other work based on her RFC, age, education, and work experience, she is not disabled. Id. The claimant bears the burden of proof through the first four steps, while the burden shifts to the SSA at step 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 SSA's decision is limited to the record made in the administrative hearing process. Jones v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 945 F.2d 1365, 1369 (6th Cir. 1991). A reviewing court may not try a case de novo, resolve conflicts in evidence, or decide questions of credibility. Garner v. Heckler, 745 F.2d 383, 387 (6th Cir. 1984) (citing Myers v. Richardson, 471 F.2d 1265, 1268 (6th Cir. 1972)). The Court must accept the ALJ's explicit findings and determination unless the record is without substantial evidence to support the ALJ's determination. Houston v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 736 F.2d 365, 366 (6th Cir. 1984).

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

In the instant case, the ALJ resolved Plaintiff's claim at step three of the five-step process. The ALJ found that Plaintiff met the first two steps - (1) she had not engaged in substantial gainful activity, and (2) her impairments of depression, anxiety, and asthma were severe - but determined at step three that Plaintiff was not presumptively disabled because she 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. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1. (AR 20-22.) At step four, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff had the RFC to perform medium work with certain limitations. (AR 22-25.) At step five, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff could not perform past relevant work but could perform work as a floor waxer. (AR 26-27.) Therefore, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff has not been under a disability since January 31, 2019, when Plaintiff filed her application. (AR 27.)

C. Plaintiff's Assertions of Error

Plaintiff alleges that the ALJ committed two errors: (1) that the ALJ erred in her assessment of Plaintiff's physical impairments at step two of the sequential evaluation analysis; and (2) that the RFC determination is unsupported by substantial evidence because it fails to properly account for Plaintiff's mental limitations. (Docket No. 14-1 at 5.) Based on these alleged errors, Plaintiff requests that the Commissioner's decision be vacated and remanded for further administrative proceedings, including a de novo hearing pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which states:

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.

(Id. at 18-19.) If the case contains an adequate record, “the [Commissioner's] decision denying benefits can be reversed and benefits awarded...