KIMBERLY E. WEST, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Sharon Berdahl (the "Claimant") requests judicial review of the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the "Commissioner") denying Claimant's application for disability benefits under the Social Security Act. Claimant appeals the decision of the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") and asserts that the Commissioner erred because the ALJ incorrectly determined that Claimant was not disabled. For the reasons discussed below, it is the recommendation of the undersigned that the Commissioner's decision be AFFIRMED.
Disability under the Social Security Act is defined as the "inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment . . ." 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). A claimant is disabled under the Social Security Act "only if his physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy . . ." 42 U.S.C. §423(d)(2)(A). Social Security regulations implement a five-step sequential process to evaluate a disability claim. See, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920.
Judicial review of the Commissioner's determination is limited in scope by 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). This Court's review is limited to two inquiries: first, whether the decision was supported by substantial evidence; and, second, whether the correct legal standards were applied.
Claimant was born on April 23, 1963 and was 51 years old at the time of the ALJ's decision. Claimant completed her high school education. Claimant has worked in the past as a secretary and certified nurses assistant. Claimant alleges an inability to work beginning July 29, 2012 due to limitations resulting from back pain, anxiety, and depression.
On October 2, 2012, Claimant protectively filed for disability insurance benefits under Title II (42 U.S.C. § 401, et seq.) and for supplemental security income under Title XVI (42 U.S.C. § 1381, et seq.) of the Social Security Act. Claimant's applications were denied initially and upon reconsideration. On July 8, 2014, an administrative hearing was conducted by Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") Douglas Gabbard, II in McAlester, Oklahoma. The ALJ entered an unfavorable decision on September 11, 2014. The Appeals Council denied review on September 2, 2015. As a result, the decision of the ALJ represents the Commissioner's final decision for purposes of further appeal. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.981, 416.1481.
The ALJ made his decision at step five of the sequential evaluation. He determined that while Claimant suffered from severe impairments, she retained the RFC to perform light work with limitations.
Claimant asserts the ALJ committed error in (1) failing to conduct a proper credibility determination; (2) reaching an erroneous RFC; and (3) failing to fully develop the record.
In his decision, the ALJ determined Claimant suffered from the severe impairment of degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine. (Tr. 22). The ALJ concluded that Claimant retained the RFC to perform light work except she could only occasionally climb, stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl. Claimant must be able to alternate between sitting and standing every fifteen to thirty minutes throughout the workday in order to change positions but without leaving the workstation. (Tr. 24). After consultation with a vocational expert, the ALJ found Claimant retained the RFC to perform the representative jobs of furniture rental clerk and arcade attendant, both of which the ALJ found to exist in sufficient numbers. (Tr. 27). As a result, the ALJ found Claimant was not disabled. (Tr. 28).
Claimant first contends the ALJ failed to engage in a proper evaluation of his credibility. Claimant testified that she last worked in 2012 as a rehab secretary and had worked prior to that time as a certified nurses assistant. (Tr. 40-41). She further testified that her lower back prevented her from working in her past jobs. She stated that she could stand for no more than fifteen to twenty minutes. She cannot lay down for more than an hour or two. Claimant testified that she "just can't do what I used to do." (Tr. 43). She has to change her positions between sitting and standing due to back pain.
For her daily routine, Claimant sits on her front porch for twenty to thirty minutes. Then, if she is able, she does light housework, "which consists of barely nothing." She loads the washer, takes clothes out of the dryer, and does a small load of dishes. She cooks in the microwave oven. Claimant shops with her daughter once a week. She engages in no social activities. (Tr. 45).
Claimant stated that her doctor wants to perform surgery on her but she is frightened at the prospect. (Tr. 45). Claimant agreed that she could only do occasional stooping, kneeling, crouching, and crawling. She stated that she tried not to lift anything that weighed over 10 pounds. She also takes anti-anxiety medication. (Tr. 46).
To take her mind off of things, Claimant visits with her next door neighbor and reads a lot of books. (Tr. 47).
Claimant began helping at Chapel Ridge Health and Rehab as an activity assistant, going two or three days a week, for up to eight hours a day. She helps the residents play bingo and card games and takes them outside on the patio. She only goes when her back isn't flared up so bad she can't move or function. (Tr. 47-48).
Claimant also stated that the pain in her lower back extends down her right leg. She also has numbness in her leg. The pain is present 24/7. She has been using a cane but has no prescription for it. (Tr. 50). She stated that she uses the cane for safety and stability to catch herself if her back would go out. 9Tr. 51).
When she performs her duties as activity assistant, Claimant spends quite a bit of time the next day in bed. She has a lot of flexibility in taking breaks and resting. (Tr. 51).
On days she spends at home, Claimant states that she spends at least six hours out of eight hours either laying down or putting her feet up. She can usually go about thirty five to forty minutes when she goes shopping but then has to find a bench. When doing tasks around the house, Claimant is able to stand between fifteen and twenty five minutes. She does a little vacuuming but no mopping or sweeping. (Tr. 53).
Claimant also states that most of her medication makes her sleepy. She estimated that she has twelve really bad days per month. (Tr. 54). Claimant also stated that her depression and anxiety makes her not like being around a lot of people. She has no problem, however, working around the 10-15 people at the rehab center because they go in and out of the room. (Tr. 54-55).
The ALJ accurately recited Claimant's testimony and concluded her credibility was "no more than fair". (Tr. 24-25). He cited to the medical record and the indications that, while Claimant reported low back pain and reduced range of motion, this condition resolved later in 2012 and the examinations were otherwise normal. (Tr. 339, 354, 357, 360, 388-93). Moreover, the ALJ correctly noted that Claimant had received minimal and conservative treatment in comparison to her subjective testimony. (Tr. 25-26). The ALJ also cited to Claimant's activities, including part time work at a rehab facility as casting doubt upon the extent of Claimant's functional limitations. (Tr. 24-25).
It is well-established that "findings as to credibility should be closely and affirmatively linked to substantial evidence and not just a conclusion in the guise of findings."
Factors to be considered in assessing a claimant's credibility include (1) the individual's daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the individual's pain or other symptoms; (3) factors that precipitate and aggravate the symptoms; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication the individual takes or has taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms; (5) treatment, other than medication, the individual receives or has received for relief of pain or other symptoms; (6) any measures other than treatment the individual uses or has used to relieve pain or other symptoms (e.g., lying flat on his or her back, standing for 15 to 20 minutes every hour, or sleeping on a board); and (7) any other factors concerning the individual's functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. Soc. Sec. R. 96-7p; 1996 WL 374186, 3.
An ALJ cannot satisfy his obligation to gauge a claimant's credibility by merely making conclusory findings and must give reasons for the determination based upon specific evidence.
In this case, the ALJ thoroughly discussed the discrepancies in the Claimant's actions, the medical record, and his testimony which adversely reflected upon the credibility of Claimant's statements of limitation. The discussion contains thoughtful reasoning and careful consideration of the record. No error is found in this credibility analysis.
Claimant contends the ALJ should have given more weight to the medical source statements in the record when arriving at the RFC. On June 24, 2013, Dr. Vikki Sutterfield authored a Physical Capabilities Evaluation on Claimant. She opined Claimant could sit for three hours in an eight hour workday and stand/walk for three hours in an eight hour workday. She also stated Claimant required an opportunity to alternate sitting and standing at will throughout the day. Dr. Sutterfield found Claimant could engage in simple grasping and fine manipulation but not pushing and pulling with her hands or engage in repetitive motion tasks. She also indicated Claimant could not use her feet for repetitive movements as in the operation of foot controls. (Tr. 325).
Dr. Sutterfield also found Claimant could occasionally lift/carry up to ten pounds and could never climb, balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, crawl, and only occasionally reach above shoulder level. Claimant could not work at unprotected heights or be around moving machinery. (Tr. 326).
Dr. Sutterfield noted Claimant suffered from fatigue due to "severe pain as well as anxiety & depression with poor sleep." She estimated Claimant's fatigue was disabling to the extent that it would prevent her from working full time at even a sedentary position. (Tr. 327). She also stated Claimant suffered from pain due to severe back pain and degenerative changes, which also would prevent her from working full time at even a sedentary position. (Tr. 328). Dr. Sutterfield also stated the effects of Claimant's medication on her attention and concentration was severe, which would preclude the attention and concentration required for even simple, unskilled work tasks. (Tr. 329).
Dr. Sutterfield was considered as a treating physician by the ALJ, but her opinion was given "little weight." (Tr. 26). As stated, the clinical findings and treatment records do not support the degree of limitation found by Dr. Sutterfield. MRI showed no herniation or stenosis in the lumbar region. (Tr. 369). The objective record does not support Dr. Sutterfield's functional conclusions. Moreover, no other medical opinion in the record offers the same level of limitation. The ALJ performed the necessary analysis of a treating physician's opinion and properly weighed the opinion.
Claimant contends the "ALJ in this case failed to fully develop the record, and the Appeals Council in this case should have remanded the case for further development" because additional evidence was needed. Claimant fails to identify specific evidence missing from the record or which should have been obtained. This argument itself fails for lack of development.
The decision of the Commissioner is supported by substantial evidence and the correct legal standards were applied. Therefore, the Magistrate Judge recommends for the above and foregoing reasons, the ruling of the Commissioner of Social Security Administration should be
