ERIN L. SETSER, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff, William Hollingsworth, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of a decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (Commissioner) denying his claims for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits (DIB) and supplemental security income (SSI) benefits under the provisions of Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act (Act). In this judicial review, the Court must determine whether there is substantial evidence in the administrative record to support the Commissioner's decision.
Plaintiff protectively filed his current applications for DIB and SSI on February 26, 2010, alleging an inability to work since January 1, 2008, due to back and knee problems, depression, irritable bowel syndrome, bone spurs, and arthritis. (Tr.110, 117, 150). An administrative video hearing was held on October 17, 2011, at which Plaintiff appeared with counsel and testified. (Tr. 22-48).
By written decision dated December 23, 2011, the ALJ found that during the relevant time period, Plaintiff had an impairment or combination of impairments that were severe. (Tr. 12). Specifically, the ALJ found Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: rheumatoid arthritis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, after reviewing all of the evidence presented, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff's impairments did not meet or equal the level of severity of any impairment listed in the Listing of Impairments found in Appendix I, Subpart P, Regulation No. 4. (Tr. 13). The ALJ found Plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to:
(Tr. 13). With the help of a vocational expert, the ALJ determined Plaintiff could perform work as a small product assembler and a bakery worker. (Tr. 17).
Plaintiff then requested a review of the hearing decision by the Appeals Council, which denied that request on December 21, 2012. (Tr. 1-4). Subsequently, Plaintiff filed this action. (Doc. 1). This case is before the undersigned pursuant to the consent of the parties. (Doc. 6). Both parties have filed appeal briefs, and the case is now ready for decision. (Docs. 11,12).
The Court has reviewed the entire transcript. The complete set of facts and arguments are presented in the parties' briefs, and are repeated here only to the extent necessary.
This Court's role is to determine whether the Commissioner's findings are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.
It is well-established that a claimant for Social Security disability benefits has the burden of proving his disability by establishing a physical or mental disability that has lasted at least one year and that prevents him from engaging in any substantial gainful activity.
The Commissioner's regulations require her to apply a five-step sequential evaluation process to each claim for disability benefits: (1) whether the claimant has engaged in substantial gainful activity since filing his claim; (2) whether the claimant has a severe physical and/or mental impairment or combination of impairments; (3) whether the impairment(s) meet or equal an impairment in the listings; (4) whether the impairment(s) prevent the claimant from doing past relevant work; and, (5) whether the claimant is able to perform other work in the national economy given his age, education, and experience.
Plaintiff argues the following issues on appeal: 1) the ALJ failed to fairly present the record when discussing Plaintiff's impairments and subjective complaints; and 2) the ALJ erred in determining Plaintiff's RFC.
We first address the ALJ's assessment of Plaintiff's subjective complaints. The ALJ was required to consider all the evidence relating to Plaintiff's subjective complaints including evidence presented by third parties that relates to: (1) Plaintiff's daily activities; (2) the duration, frequency, and intensity of his pain; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of his medication; and (5) functional restrictions.
After reviewing the administrative record, it is clear that the ALJ properly considered and evaluated Plaintiff's subjective complaints, including the
The medical evidence revealed that Plaintiff has COPD. When discussing Plaintiff's respiratory impairment, the ALJ noted that Plaintiff did not seek regular and consistent treatment. The ALJ also pointed out that despite the repeated recommendations to stop smoking, Plaintiff continued to smoke, from one to three packages of cigarettes a day, throughout the relevant time period.
Plaintiff also indicated that he experienced chronic and continued back and joint pain. A review of the record revealed that Plaintiff did seek treatment for joint and back pain and that Plaintiff had an elevated rheumatoid factor. However, the most recent medical record indicated that Plaintiff was experiencing improvement with his new medication regimen.
The Court would also note that while Plaintiff alleged an inability to seek treatment due to a lack of finances, the record is void of any indication that Plaintiff had been denied treatment due to the lack of funds.
Therefore, although it is clear that Plaintiff suffers with some degree of pain, he has not established that he is unable to engage in any gainful activity.
RFC is the most a person can do despite that person's limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). It is assessed using all relevant evidence in the record.
In the present case, the ALJ considered the medical assessments of examining and non-examining agency medical consultants, Plaintiff's subjective complaints, and his medical records when he determined Plaintiff could perform light work with limitations. The Court finds, based upon the well-stated reasons outlined in the Defendant's brief, that Plaintiff's argument is without merit, and there was sufficient evidence for the ALJ to make an informed decision. Plaintiff's capacity to perform light work with limitations is also supported by the fact that the medical evidence does not indicate that Plaintiff's examining physicians placed restrictions on his activities that would preclude performing the RFC determined.
After thoroughly reviewing the hearing transcript along with the entire evidence of record, the Court finds that the hypothetical the ALJ posed to the vocational expert fully set forth the impairments which the ALJ accepted as true and which were supported by the record as a whole.
Accordingly, having carefully reviewed the record, the undersigned finds substantial evidence supporting the ALJ's decision denying the Plaintiff benefits, and thus the decision should be affirmed. The undersigned further finds that the Plaintiff's Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice.