Wygle v. Saul

VICTORIA K. WYGLE, Claimant, v. ANDREW M. SAUL,Commissioner of Social Security,¹ Defendant.

No. 18-CV-3049-LTS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CENTRAL DIVISION

February 27, 2020

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Victoria K. Wygle ("Claimant") seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("the Commissioner") denying her application for Supplemental Security Income benefits ("SSI") under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. Sections 1381-85. Claimant contends that the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") erred in determining that she was not disabled. For the reasons that follow, I recommend that the District Court affirm in part and reverse and remand in part the Commissioner's decision.

I. BACKGROUND

I adopt the facts set forth in the Parties' Joint Statement of Facts (Doc. 12) and only summarize the pertinent facts here. This is an appeal from a denial of supplemental security income benefits ("SSI"). Claimant was born on May 19, 1964. (AR² at 298.)Claimant has at least a high school education and is able to communicate in English. (Id. at 51.) She allegedly became disabled due to fibromyalgia and osteoarthritis in her knees, feet, and back/spine. (Id. at 328.) Claimant's original alleged onset of disability date was May 1, 2010. (Id. at 298.) Claimant filed an application for SSI on September 25, 2014. (Id. at 42.)³ Claimant's claim was denied originally and on reconsideration. (Id. at 217-21, 228-32.) A telephonic hearing was held on June 9, 2017 with Claimant in Mitchellville, Iowa, where she was incarcerated; her attorney, Hugh Field, and a Hearing Monitor in Waterloo, Iowa; and ALJ Raymond Souza in Kansas City, Missouri. (Id. at 61-115.)⁴ Vocational expert ("VE") Lisa Cox also appeared, but her location was not disclosed. (Id. at 176-82.) Claimant and the VE testified. (Id. at 157-82.) The ALJ issued an unfavorable decision on October 12, 2017. (Id. at 42-52.)

Claimant requested review and submitted additional evidence: 79 pages of records from Unity Point Health, dated September 8, 2015 to September 29, 2017 and various medical records from November 3 and November 9, 2017. (Id. at 2.) The Appeals Council denied review on June 8, 2018 and refused to consider the new evidence. (Id. at 1-5.) The Council found that the first group of medical records did not show a reasonable probability they would change the outcome of the ALJ's decision. (Id. at 2.) The Council found that the second group of records was irrelevant because they addresseda time period after the ALJ's decision. (Id.)⁵ Accordingly, the ALJ's decision stands as the final administrative ruling in the matter and became the final decision of the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.1481.

On August 27, 2018, Claimant timely filed her complaint in this Court. (Doc. 4.) The case was originally assigned to Chief Magistrate Judge C.J. Williams. (Doc. 2.) When Judge Williams was appointed as United States District Court Judge, the case was reassigned to me. On December 11, 2018, the case was reassigned to Chief District Court Judge Leonard T. Strand and me. On May 6, 2019, the briefing deadlines were passed and the Honorable Leonard T. Strand referred the case to me for a Report and Recommendation.⁶

II. DISABILITY DETERMINATIONS AND THE BURDEN OF PROOF

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." 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A). A claimant has a disability when, due to physical or mental impairments, the claimant

is not only unable to do [the claimant's] previous work but cannot, considering [the claimant's] age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists . . . in significant numbers either in the region where such individual lives or in several regions of the country.

42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(2)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(B). A claimant is not disabled if the claimant is able to do work that exists in the national economy but is unemployed due to an inabilityto find work, lack of options in the local area, technological changes in a particular industry, economic downturns, employer hiring practices, or other factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1566(c).

To determine whether a claimant has a disability within the meaning of the Social Security Act, the Commissioner follows the five-step sequential evaluation process outlined in the regulations. Dixon v. Barnhart, 353 F.3d 602, 605 (8th Cir. 2003). At steps one through four, the claimant has the burden to prove he or she is disabled; at step five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to prove there are jobs available in the national economy. Moore v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 520, 523 (8th Cir. 2009).

At step one, the ALJ will consider whether a claimant is engaged in "substantial gainful activity." Id. If so, the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(i). "Substantial activity is significant physical or mental work that is done on a full- or part-time basis. Gainful activity is simply work that is done for compensation." Dukes v. Barnhart, 436 F.3d 923, 927 (8th Cir. 2006) (citing Comstock v. Chater, 91 F.3d 1143, 1145 (8th Cir. 1996); 20 C.F.R. § 416.972(a),(b)).

If the claimant is not engaged in substantial gainful activity, at step two, the ALJ decides if the claimant's impairments are severe. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii). If the impairments are not severe, then the claimant is not disabled. Id. An impairment is not severe if it does not significantly limit a claimant's "physical or mental ability to do basic work activities." Id. § 416.920(c). The ability to do basic work activities means the ability and aptitude necessary to perform most jobs. Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 141 (1987) (quoting 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1521(b), 416.921(b)). These include

(1) physical functions such as walking, standing, sitting, lifting, pushing, pulling, reaching, carrying, or handling; (2) capacities for seeing, hearing, and speaking; (3) understanding, carrying out, and remembering simple instructions; (4) use of judgment; (5) responding appropriately to supervision, co-workers, and usual work situations; and (6) dealing with changes in a routine work setting.

Id. (quotation omitted) (numbers added; internal brackets omitted).

If the claimant has a severe impairment, at step three, the ALJ will determine the medical severity of the impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii). If the impairment meets or equals one of the impairments listed in the regulations ("the listings"), then "the claimant is presumptively disabled without regard to age, education, and work experience." Tate v. Apfel, 167 F.3d 1191, 1196 (8th Cir. 1999) (quotation omitted).

If the claimant's impairment is severe, but it does not meet or equal an impairment in the listings, at step four, the ALJ will assess the claimant's residual functional capacity ("RFC") and the demands of the claimant's past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iv). RFC is what the claimant can still do despite his or her limitations. Guilliams v. Barnhart, 393 F.3d 798, 801 (8th Cir. 2005) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a), 416.945(a)). RFC is based on all relevant evidence and the claimant is responsible for providing the evidence the Commissioner will use to determine the RFC. Eichelberger v. Barnhart, 390 F.3d 584, 591 (8th Cir. 2004). "Past relevant work" is any work the claimant performed within the fifteen years prior to his application that was substantial gainful activity and lasted long enough for the claimant to learn how to do it. 20 C.F.R. § 416.960(b)(1). If a claimant retains enough RFC to perform past relevant work, then the claimant is not disabled. Id. § 416.920(a)(4)(iv).

At step five, if the claimant's RFC will not allow the claimant to perform past relevant work, then the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show there is other work the claimant can do, given the claimant's RFC, age, education, and work experience. Id. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(v), 416.960(c)(2). The ALJ must show not only that the claimant's RFC will allow the claimant to do other work, but also that other work exists in significant numbers in the national economy. Eichelberger, 390 F.3d at 591 (citation omitted).

A. The ALJ'S Findings

The ALJ made the following findings at each step of the five-step process regarding Claimant's disability status.

At step one, the ALJ found that Claimant had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since her alleged onset of disability date. (AR at 44.)

At step two, the ALJ found that Claimant suffered from the following severe impairments: fibromyalgia, depression, and anxiety. (Id.) The ALJ also found the following impairments nonsevere: Claimant's alleged respiratory impairment, back impairment, foot impairment, and impairment of the hands. (Id. at 45.) The ALJ also found Claimant's alleged migraines to be non-medically determinable. (Id.) In reaching these decisions, the ALJ considered listings 1.02 (major dysfunction of a joint due to any cause), 12.04 (depressive, bipolar and related disorders), and 12.06 (anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorders). (Id. at 46-47.)

At step three, the ALJ found that Claimant did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or equaled a presumptively disabling impairment listed in the regulations, either when considered singly or in combination. (Id. at 46.)

At step four, the ALJ found that Claimant had the following RFC:

[T]he claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 416.967(b) involving sitting or standing alternatively at will, as long as the person is not off task for more than 10% of the work period. The claimant could occasionally climb ramps or stairs, but never climb ladders, ropes or scaffolds. She

...