H. BRENT BRENNENSTUHL, Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court is the complaint (DN 1) of Plaintiff Adam Standifer seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Both the Plaintiff (DN 16) and Defendant (DN 20) have filed a Fact and Law Summary. For the reasons that follow, the final decision of the Commissioner is affirmed.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73, the parties have consented to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge conducting all further proceedings in this case, including issuance of a memorandum opinion and entry of judgment, with direct review by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in the event an appeal is filed (DN 12). By Order entered November 15, 2017 (DN 13), the parties were notified that oral arguments would not be held unless a written request therefor was filed and granted. No such request was filed.
Plaintiff filed an application for Supplemental Security Income on December 19, 2013
In a decision dated May 16, 2016 the ALJ evaluated this adult disability claim pursuant to the five-step sequential evaluation process promulgated by the Commissioner (Tr. 80-92). At the first step, the ALJ found Plaintiff has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since November 18, 2013, the application date (Tr. 85). At the second step, the ALJ determined that the Plaintiff had the following severe impairments within the meaning of the regulations: status-post back surgery, degenerative disc disease, avascular necrosis of the left hip, status-post total left hip replacement, and gastroesophageal reflux disease (Tr. 85). Notably, at the second step, the ALJ also determined that Plaintiff's Hepatitis C, status-post gallbladder removal surgery, and mental impairments of depression and anxiety are "non-severe" impairments within the meaning of the regulations (Tr. 85-86). At the third step, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals one of the listed impairments in Appendix 1 (Tr. 87).
At the fourth step, the ALJ found Plaintiff has the residual functional capacity to perform sedentary work as defined in 20 CFR 416.927(a)
(Tr. 88). Relying on testimony from the vocational expert, the ALJ found that Plaintiff is unable to perform any of his past relevant work as a farm laborer, welder, and general laborer (Tr. 91).
The ALJ proceeded to the fifth step where she considered Plaintiff's residual functional capacity, age, education, and past work experience as well as testimony from the vocational expert (Tr. 92-93). The ALJ found that Plaintiff is capable of performing a significant number of jobs that exist in the national economy (Tr. 93). Therefore, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff has not been under a "disability," as defined in the Social Security Act, from November 18, 2013 through the date of the decision (Tr. 93).
Plaintiff timely filed a request for the Appeals Council to review the ALJ's decision (Tr. 356-57). The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review of the ALJ's decision (Tr. 1-5).
Review by the Court is limited to determining whether the findings set forth in the final decision of the Commissioner are supported by "substantial evidence," 42 U.S.C. § 405(g);
As previously mentioned, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review of the ALJ's decision (Tr. 1-5). At that point, the ALJ's decision became the final decision of the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.955(b), 404.981, 422.210(a); see 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) (finality of the Commissioner's decision). Thus, the Court will be reviewing the decision of the ALJ, not the Appeals Council, and the evidence that was in the administrative record when the ALJ rendered the decision. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); 20 C.F.R. § 404.981;
The Social Security Act authorizes payment of Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income to persons with disabilities. 42 U.S.C. §§ 401 et seq. (Title II Disability Insurance Benefits), 1381 et seq. (Title XVI Supplemental Security Income). The term "disability" is defined as an
42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A) (Title II), 1382c(a)(3)(A) (Title XVI); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1505(a), 416.905(a);
The Commissioner has promulgated regulations setting forth a five-step sequential evaluation process for evaluating a disability claim. See "Evaluation of disability in general," 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. In summary, the evaluation proceeds as follows:
Here, the ALJ denied Plaintiff's claim at the fifth step.
Plaintiff's fact and law summary and supporting memorandum set forth challenges to Findings Nos. 2, and 4 (DN 16 PageID # 1373-79). Plaintiff argues that Finding No. 2 fails to recognize that Plaintiff's mental health conditions constitute a severe impairment. (
The Court will begin by addressing Plaintiff's challenge to Finding No. 2. Plaintiff contends that he suffers from depression and anxiety and that the ALJ erred in her determination that these mental impairments were not severe (
Defendant asserts that:
(DN 20 PageID # 1393). Therefore, argues Defendant, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the ALJ failed to consider Plaintiff's mental impairments nor has Plaintiff demonstrated that the ALJ erred in her determination.
At the second step in the sequential evaluation process, a claimant must demonstrate a "severe" impairment. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii);
To satisfy the "medically determinable" requirement, the claimant must present objective medical evidence (i.e., signs, symptoms, and laboratory findings) that demonstrates the existence of a physical or mental impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 416.908; Social Security Ruling 96-4p, 1996 WL 374187, at *1; Social Security Ruling 96-3p, 1996 WL 374181, at *2. To fulfill the "duration" requirement the impairment "must have lasted or must be expected to last for a continuous period of at least 12 months." 20 C.F.R. § 416.909.
The ALJ, in a decision dated May 16, 2016, determined that Plaintiff's medically determinable mental impairments of depression and anxiety considered singly and in combination did not cause more than minimal limitations (Tr. 86). The ALJ considered the four function areas set out in the disability regulations for evaluating mental disorders and in section 12.00C of the Listing of Impairments (20 CFR, Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1) (Tr. 86) and determined that "[b]ecause the claimant's medically determinable mental impairments cause no more than `mild' limitations in any of the first three functional areas and `no' episodes of decompensation which have been of extended duration in the fourth area, they are nonsevere (20 CFR 416.920a(d)(1))." (Tr. 87). Thus, the Court agrees with the Defendant that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the ALJ did not consider Plaintiff's mental impairments.
As noted above, Plaintiff has been receiving treatment at River Valley Behavioral Health since October 14, 2016 and provided these records to the Appeals Council. Plaintiff contends that these records demonstrate and corroborate his testimony and requests that this Court reverse or remand the case in order for the ALJ to consider the case through the lens of this new evidence of Plaintiff's impairments.
The Appeals Council considered the evidence but denied Plaintiff's request for review. As a result, the ALJ's decision became the final decision of the Commissioner. Thus, the ALJ's decision is subject to judicial review, and evidence submitted for the first time to the Appeals Council cannot provide a basis for finding the ALJ's decision unsupported by substantial evidence.
Plaintiff alleges that the ALJ failed to consider the full implications of the combinations of Plaintiff's impairments with regard to the RFC (DN 16 PageID # 1376-77)
Plaintiff contends that the ALJ discounted his testimony regarding pain and other symptoms without articulating a valid reason for doing so (DN 16 PageID # 1377-78). Plaintiff alleges that he has been nothing but consistent in detailing the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of his pain and that he was honest and cooperative. Furthermore, Plaintiff contends that objective evidence in the form of imaging and medical records supports his subjective statements and that the ALJ erred in not accepting his testimony as fully credible (
Defendant contends that "the ALJ found that, although Plaintiff's medically determinable impairments could be reasonably expected to produce the alleged symptoms, Plaintiff's statements regarding the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of those symptoms were not fully consistent with the evidence of record (Tr. 89)." (DN 20 PageID # 1396-97). Further, Defendant asserts that the ALJ expressly considered Plaintiff's testimony concerning his impairments as well as several state reviewing physicians' opinions that alleged a greater degree of function than Plaintiff alleged
In assessing a claimant's residual functional capacity the ALJ must necessarily consider the subjective allegations of the claimant and make credibility findings. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929; Social Security Ruling 96-7p. A claimant's statement that he is experiencing pain and other symptoms will not, taken alone, establish that he is disabled; there must be medical signs and laboratory findings which show the existence of a medical impairment that could reasonably be expected to give rise to the pain and other symptoms alleged. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), 416.929(a). In determining whether a claimant suffers from debilitating pain and other symptoms, the two-part test set forth in
When the reported pain and other symptoms suggest an impairment of greater severity than can be shown by objective medical evidence, the Administrative Law Judge will consider other information and factors which may be relevant to the degree of pain alleged. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). For example, the Administrative Law Judge may consider a claimant's level of daily activity in determining the extent to which pain and other symptoms are of disabling severity. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i), 416.929(c)(3)(i);
In pertinent part, the ALJ's decision reads as follows:
(Tr. 89).
The ALJ found from the medical record, several state reviewing physicians' opinions, and Plaintiff's testimony, that Plaintiff does not suffer pain and other symptoms to the extent he claimed. In the absence of detailed corroborating evidence of Plaintiff's subjective complaints, it becomes the duty of the ALJ to resolve the issue of Plaintiff's credibility. Since tolerance of pain and other symptoms is a highly individualized matter, and a determination of disability based on pain depends, of necessity, largely on the credibility of the claimant, the conclusion of the Administrative Law Judge, who has the opportunity to observe the claimant's demeanor, "should not be discharged lightly."
