Walker v. Saul, 3:20-0342

JOY WALKER v. ANDREW M. SAUL Commissioner of Social Security

No. 3:20-0342

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

September 3, 2021

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

BARBARA D. HOLMES, United States Magistrate Judge.

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 No. 23), to which Defendant has filed a response. (Docket No. 24.) Plaintiff has also filed a reply to Defendant's response. (Docket No. 25.) This matter has been referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) for initial consideration and a Report and Recommendation. (Docket No. 7.)

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. 23) be DENIED.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff filed an application for DIB on December 30, 2015. (See Transcript of the Administrative Record (Docket No. 21) at 69.)^[1] She alleged a disability onset date of April 22, 2009 and asserted that she was unable to work because of knee pain, back pain, a past gastric bypass procedure, and depression. (AR 69, 71.) Plaintiff's applications were denied initially and upon reconsideration. (AR 69-70.)

Plaintiff again filed applications for DIB and SSI on June 19, 2017. (AR 81-82.) She again alleged a disability onset date of April 22, 2009 and that she was unable to work because of knee pain, back pain, a past gastric bypass procedure, and depression. (AR 81, 94.) These applications were denied initially and upon reconsideration. (AR 81-82, 96-97.) Pursuant to her request for a hearing before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”), Plaintiff appeared and testified at a hearing before ALJ Brian Dougherty on January 25, 2019. (AR 30.) The ALJ denied the claim on April 18, 2019. (AR 9-11.) The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review of the ALJ's decision on February 21, 2020 (AR 1-4), 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 December 31, 2014.

2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since April 22, 2009, the alleged onset date (20 CFR 404.1571 et seq., and 416.971 et seq.).

3. The claimant has the following severe impairment: osteoarthritis of both knees (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 the claimant can stand and/or walk for 4 hours in an 8-hour day. The claimant can occasionally perform postural activities, but can never kneel, crawl or climb ladders. The claimant must avoid concentrated exposure to extreme temperatures, vibrations and hazards.

6. The claimant is capable of performing past relevant work as an Office Manager (DOT No. 169.167-034, Sedentary, SVP-7). This work does not require the performance of work-related activities precluded by the claimant's residual functional capacity (20 CFR 404.1565 and 416.965).

7. The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, from April 22, 2009, through the date of this decision (20 CFR 404.1520(f) and 416.920(f)).

(AR 14-22.)

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 Commissioner is 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 as “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, she is not disabled. 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, based on her residual functional capacity (“RFC”), she can perform past relevant work. 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 Commissioner 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 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 Plaintiff's claim at step four 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 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. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. At step four, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was able to perform past relevant work and therefore not disabled. (AR 14-22.)

C. Plaintiff's Assertions of Error

Plaintiff presents two assertions of error: (1) that the ALJ failed to properly weigh Plaintiff's subjective complaints; and (2) that the ALJ both failed to adequately consider the opinion evidence and failed to develop the record concerning Plaintiff's allegedly worsening condition. (Docket No. 23-1 at 9.) Plaintiff therefore requests that the Commissioner's decision be reversed, and that this matter be remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for additional consideration. (Id. at 18.)

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. Tenn. 2020) (quoting Faucher v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 17 F.3d 171, 176 (6th Cir. 1994)). The Court addresses Plaintiff's assertions of error below.

1. Allegations of Disabling Pain.

The ALJ's opinion includes a finding that Plaintiff's statements regarding...