DECISION AND ENTRY: (1) REVERSING THE ALJ'S NON-DISABILITY FINDING AS UNSUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE; (2) REMANDING THIS CASE UNDER THE FOURTH SENTENCE OF 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS; AND (3) TERMINATING THIS CASE ON THE COURT'S DOCKET
MICHAEL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.
This is a Social Security disability benefits appeal for which the parties have consented to entry of final judgment. At issue is whether the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") erred in finding Plaintiff not "disabled" and therefore unentitled to Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB"). This case is before the Court on Plaintiff's Statement of Errors (doc. 9), the Commissioner's memorandum in opposition (doc. 13), Plaintiff's reply (doc. 15), the administrative record (doc. 7),1 and the record as a whole.
I.
A. Procedural History
Plaintiff filed for DIB alleging a disability onset date of March 27, 2015.2 PageID 2884. Plaintiff claims disability as a result of a number of alleged impairments including, inter alia, resdiuals of a lumbosacral strain, depression, and an anxiety disorder. PageID 58.
After an initial denial of her application, Plaintiff received a hearing before ALJ Gregory G. Kenyon on September 26, 2017. PageID 71-97. The ALJ issued a written decision on January 1, 2018 finding Plaintiff not disabled. PageID 56-65. Specifically, the ALJ found at Step Five that, based upon Plaintiff's residual functional capacity ("RFC") to perform a reduced range of medium work,3 "there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that [Plaintiff] can perform[.]" PageID 60-65.
Thereafter, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review, making the ALJ's non-disability finding the final administrative decision of the Commissioner. PageID 43-45. See Casey v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 987 F.2d 1230, 1233 (6th Cir. 1993). Plaintiff then filed this timely appeal. Cook v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 480 F.3d 432, 435 (6th Cir. 2007).
B. Evidence of Record
The evidence of record is adequately summarized in the ALJ's decision (PageID 56-65), Plaintiff's Statement of Errors (doc. 9), the Commissioner's memorandum in opposition (doc. 13), and Plaintiff's reply (doc. 14). The undersigned incorporates all of the foregoing and sets forth the facts relevant to this appeal herein.
II.
A. Standard of Review
The Court's inquiry on a Social Security appeal is to determine (1) whether the ALJ's non-disability finding is supported by substantial evidence, and (2) whether the ALJ employed the correct legal criteria. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Bowen v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 478 F.3d 742,745-46 (6th Cir. 2007). In performing this review, the Court must consider the record as a whole. Hephner v. Mathews, 574 F.2d 359, 362 (6th Cir. 1978).
Substantial evidence is "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). When substantial evidence supports the ALJ's denial of benefits, that finding must be affirmed, even if substantial evidence also exists in the record upon which the ALJ could have found Plaintiff disabled. Buxton v. Halter, 246 F.3d 762, 772 (6th Cir. 2001). Thus, the ALJ has a "`zone of choice' within which he [or she] can act without the fear of court interference." Id. at 773.
The second judicial inquiry — reviewing the correctness of the ALJ's legal analysis — may result in reversal even if the ALJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record. Rabbers v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 582 F.3d 647, 651 (6th Cir. 2009). "[A] decision of the Commissioner will not be upheld where the [Social Security Administration] fails to follow its own regulations and where that error prejudices a claimant on the merits or deprives the claimant of a substantial right." Bowen, 478 F.3d at 746.
B. "Disability" Defined
To be eligible for disability benefits, a claimant must be under a "disability" as defined by the Social Security Act. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). Narrowed to its statutory meaning, a "disability" includes physical and/or mental impairments that are both "medically determinable" and severe enough to prevent a claimant from (1) performing his or her past job and (2) engaging in "substantial gainful activity" that is available in the regional or national economies. Id.
Administrative regulations require a five-step sequential evaluation for disability determinations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). Although a dispositive finding at any step ends the ALJ's review, see Colvin v. Barnhart, 475 F.3d 727, 730 (6th Cir. 2007), the complete sequential review poses five questions:
1. Has the claimant engaged in substantial gainful activity?;
2. Does the claimant suffer from one or more severe impairments?;
3. Do the claimant's severe impairments, alone or in combination, meet or equal the criteria of an impairment set forth in the Commissioner's Listing of Impairments (the "Listings"), 20 C.F.R. Subpart P, Appendix 1?;
4. Considering the claimant's RFC, can he or she perform his or her past relevant work?; and
5. Assuming the claimant can no longer perform his or her past relevant work — and also considering the claimant's age, education, past work experience, and RFC — do significant numbers of other jobs exist in the national economy which the claimant can perform?
20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4); see also Miller v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 181 F.Supp.2d 816, 818 (S.D. Ohio 2001). A claimant bears the ultimate burden of establishing disability under the Social Security Act's definition. Key v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 109 F.3d 270, 274 (6th Cir. 1997).
III.
In her Statement of Errors, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in weighing the medical source opinions of record. Doc. 9. Finding error in the ALJ's assessments of the opinions written by Plaintiff's treating psychiatrist, the undersigned agrees with her alleged errors.
Until March 27, 2017, "the Commissioner's regulations [that apply to this appeal] establish[ed] a hierarchy of acceptable medical source opinions[.]" Snell v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 3:12-cv-119, 2013 WL 372032, at *9 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 30, 2013). In descending order, these medical source opinions are: (1) treaters; (2) examiners; and (3) record reviewers. Id. Under the regulations then in effect, the opinions of treaters are entitled to the greatest deference because they "are likely to be . . . most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [a claimant's] medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone or from reports of individual examinations[.]" 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).
A treater's opinion must be given "controlling weight" if "well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and . . . not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record." LaRiccia v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 549 F. App'x 377, 384 (6th Cir. 2013). Even if a treater's opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, "the ALJ must still determine how much weight is appropriate by considering a number of factors, including the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability of the opinion, consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and any specialization of the treating physician." Blakley v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399, 406 (6th Cir. 2009); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).4
After treaters, "[n]ext in the hierarchy are examining physicians and psychologists, who often see and examine claimants only once." Snell, 2013 WL 372032, at *9.
Record reviewers are afforded the least deference and these "non-examining physicians' opinions are on the lowest rung of the hierarchy of medical source opinions." Id. Put simply, "[t]he regulations provide progressively more rigorous tests for weighing opinions as the ties between the source of the opinion and the individual [claimant] become weaker." Id. (citing SSR 96-6p, 1996 WL 374180, at *2 (July 2, 1996)). In the absence of a controlling treating source opinion, an ALJ must "evaluate all medical opinions" with regard to the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), i.e., length of treatment history; consistency of the opinion with other evidence; supportability; and specialty or expertise in the medical field related to the individual's impairment(s). Walton v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 97-2030, 1999 WL 506979, at *2 (6th Cir. June 7, 1999).
Here, Darshan Singh, M.D. Plaintiff's treating psychiatrist, issued three opinions regarding Plaintiff's mental functional capacity. In July 2015, Dr. Singh opined that Plaintiff was impaired in her ability to remember, understand, and follow directions; maintain attention; sustain concentration; and persist and complete tasks in a timely fashion. Id. Dr. Singh additionally found Plaintiff had deficiencies in social interactions and in her ability to cope; and that her ability to react to pressures in a work setting were "impaired by anxiety and depression." PageID 461. Similarly, in January 2016, Dr. Singh found that Plaintiff was "substantially limited" in, inter alia, her ability to: remember work-like procedures; understand and remember detailed instructions; carry out detailed instructions; maintain attention and concentration; work in coordination with or proximity to others; complete normal workday and workweek without an unreasonable number and length or rest periods; and respond appropriately to criticism and changes in the work place. PageID 486-87. Finally, in October 2016, Dr. Singh found that Plaintiff's ability to perform full-time work was "markedly"5 impaired in many of the same areas of functional abilities including, social interaction, adaption, and sustained concentration and persistence. PageID 595-96. In affording Dr. Singh's opinions "little weight," the ALJ committed multiple errors. PageID 63.
Initially, the undersigned notes that the ALJ erred in failing to specifically mention the applicable concept of controlling weight, analyze the controlling weight factors, or decline to give Dr. Singh's opinions controlling weight. Id. As noted by this Court on numerous occasions, such a failure is reversible error because it "deprives the Court of the opportunity to meaningfully review whether [the ALJ] undertook the `two-step inquiry' required when analyzing treating source opinions." Marks v. Colvin, 201 F.Supp.3d 870, 882 (S.D. Ohio 2016); Hatton v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 3:18-CV-008, 2018 WL 4766963, at *4 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 3, 2018), report and recommendation adopted, No. 3:18-CV-8, 2018 WL 5084758 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 18, 2018); Reese v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 3:17-CV-283, 2018 WL 2381896, at *3 (S.D. Ohio May 25, 2018).
Instead, the ALJ discounted Dr. Singh's opinions as "inconsistent with [Plaintiff's] treatment records, which consistently show normal mental status exams." PageID 63. Not only is this an inaccurate articulation of the controlling weight test, but such an assertion is also unsupported by Dr. Singh's treatment records. Those records consistently document that — at a minimum — Dr. Singh observed Plaintiff to be anxious during sessions. See, e.g., PageID 478, 481, 591, 592, 667, 668. Dr. Singh noted additional symptoms on other occasions such as, "depression," "moodiness," "self-injury behavior"; "irritated, anxious, and aggravated mood"; "depressed, mood symptoms, irritable, angry"; "hallucinations"; "anxiety high"; and "depressed, anxious, anger, crying, multiple stressors." PageID 482, 586, 588, 589, 590, 670, 671, 669. Dr. Singh's opinion is also supported by the other medical opinions of record. Haley O'Connell, Psy.D. evaluated Plaintiff and found that she was "likely to respond to stress with increased anxiety and emotional difficulties." PageID 472. Moreover, state agency's psychologist Courtney Zeune, Psy.D concluded that Plaintiff would need a "flexible break schedule due to symptom fluctuations." PageID 109. Thus, the ALJ's assessment of Dr. Singh's opinion was not supported by substantial evidence.
The undersigned finds additional error in the ALJ's conclusion that Dr. Singh's treatment notes indicated "at most moderate levels of depression." PageID 63. Namely, the ALJ erred in substituting his own lay opinion for that of the professional medical opinion of Plaintiff's treating psychiatrist. See Mabra v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 2:11-CV-00407, 2012 WL 3600127, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 21, 2012) ("[T]he Court cannot ignore that the ALJ offered [his] own lay interpretation of the medical evidence in the face of more severe opinions from Plaintiff's treating physician"); Deskin v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 605 F.Supp.2d 908, 912 (N.D. Ohio 2008) ("[T]he ALJ may not interpret raw medical data in functional terms"). Dr. Singh's notes do not include any modifiers indicating "moderate" depression, and the ALJ was not permitted to unilaterally interpret his objective medical findings as such. See Simpson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 344 Fed. Appx. 181, 194 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing Rohan v. Chater, 98 F.3d 966, 970 (7th Cir. 1996)) (stating "ALJ's must not succumb to the temptation to play doctor and make their own independent medical findings").
In failing to conduct a proper controlling weight analysis, the ALJ did not follow the Commissioner's own procedural regulations, and reversal is mandated even if "substantial evidence otherwise supports the decision of the Commissioner." See Wilson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 544 (6th Cir. 2004).
IV.
When, as here, the ALJ's non-disability determination is unsupported by substantial evidence, the Court must determine whether to reverse and remand the matter for rehearing or to reverse and order an award of benefits. The Court has authority to affirm, modify or reverse the Commissioner's decision "with or without remanding the cause for rehearing." 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 100 (1991). Generally, 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." Faucher v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 17 F.3d 171, 176 (6th Cir. 1994); see also Abbott v. Sullivan, 905 F.2d 918, 927 (6th Cir. 1990); Varley v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 820 F.2d 777, 782 (6th Cir. 1987). In this instance, evidence of disability is not overwhelming, and a remand for further proceedings is necessary.
V.
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) the Commissioner's non-disability finding is unsupported by substantial evidence, and REVERSED; (2) this matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner under the Fourth Sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings; and (3) this case is TERMINATED on the docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
