THOMAS M. DIGIROLAMO, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Carline S. seeks judicial review under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Defendant" or the "Commissioner") denying her applications for disability insurance benefits, disabled widow's benefits, and Supplemental Security Income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. Before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and alternative motion for remand (ECF No. 15) and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 20).
On April 12, 2016, Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") James R. McHenry III held a hearing where Plaintiff and a vocational expert ("VE") testified. R. at 17-59. The ALJ thereafter found on September 14, 2016, that Plaintiff was not disabled from January 31, 2010, through the date of the ALJ's decision. R. at 136-73. In so finding, the ALJ found that, with regard to concentration, persistence, or pace, Plaintiff had moderate difficulties. R. at 148. The ALJ found that Plaintiff had the residual functional capacity ("RFC") to perform light work with additional limitations, including, among other things, the ability to understand, remember, and carry out simple, routine instructions or tasks free of fast-paced or team-dependent production requirements and involving simple work-related decisions and occasional, if any, workplace changes. R. at 149. The ALJ also found that Plaintiff would be "off task" a maximum of 10% of the workday in addition to normal workday breaks, provided that the time "off task" would not be in one continuous block, but would be spread out over the course of the workday averaging six minutes per hour. R. at 149. The ALJ then determined that, although Plaintiff could not perform her past relevant work as a certified nursing assistant, she could, according to the VE, perform other work, such as a sorter, inspector, or packager, and thus was not disabled. R. at 161-64.
After the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review, Plaintiff filed on October 24, 2017, a complaint in this Court seeking review of the Commissioner's decision. Upon the parties' consent, this case was transferred to a United States Magistrate Judge for final disposition and entry of judgment. The case then was reassigned to the undersigned. The parties have briefed the issues, and the matter is now fully submitted.
The Social Security Act defines a disability as the inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment that can be expected to result in death or that has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than twelve months. 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1505, 416.905. A claimant has a disability when the claimant 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 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).
To determine whether a claimant has a disability within the meaning of the Social Security Act, the Commissioner follows a five-step sequential evaluation process outlined in the regulations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920; see Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 24-25, 124 S.Ct. 376, 379-80 (2003). "If at any step a finding of disability or nondisability can be made, the [Commissioner] will not review the claim further." Thomas, 540 U.S. at 24, 124 S. Ct. at 379; see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4). The claimant has the burden of production and proof at steps one through four. See Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 n.5, 107 S.Ct. 2287, 2294 n.5 (1987); Radford v. Colvin, 734 F.3d 288, 291 (4th Cir. 2013).
First, the Commissioner will consider a claimant's work activity. If the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity, then the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i), 416.920(a)(4)(i).
Second, if the claimant is not engaged in substantial gainful activity, the Commissioner looks to see whether the claimant has a "severe" impairment, i.e., an impairment or combination of impairments that significantly limits the claimant's physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. Pass v. Chater, 65 F.3d 1200, 1203 (4th Cir. 1995); see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 404.1521(a), 416.920(c), 416.921(a).
Third, if the claimant has a severe impairment, then the Commissioner will consider the medical severity of the impairment. If the impairment meets or equals one of the presumptively disabling impairments listed in the regulations, then the claimant is considered disabled, regardless of age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 404.1520(d), 416.920(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(d); see Radford, 734 F.3d at 293.
Fourth, if the claimant's impairment is severe, but it does not meet or equal one of the presumptively disabling impairments, then the Commissioner will assess the claimant's RFC to determine the claimant's "ability to meet the physical, mental, sensory, and other requirements" of the claimant's past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), 404.1545(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4)(iv), 416.945(a)(4). RFC is a measurement of the most a claimant can do despite his or her limitations. Hines v. Barnhart, 453 F.3d 559, 562 (4th Cir. 2006); see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1). The claimant is responsible for providing evidence the Commissioner will use to make a finding as to the claimant's RFC, but the Commissioner is responsible for developing the claimant's "complete medical history, including arranging for a consultative examination(s) if necessary, and making every reasonable effort to help [the claimant] get medical reports from [the claimant's] own medical sources." 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 416.945(a)(3). The Commissioner also will consider certain non-medical evidence and other evidence listed in the regulations. See id. If a claimant retains the RFC to perform past relevant work, then the claimant is not disabled. Id. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), 416.920(a)(4)(iv).
Fifth, if the claimant's RFC as determined in step four will not allow the claimant to perform past relevant work, then the burden shifts to the Commissioner to prove that there is other work that the claimant can do, given the claimant's RFC as determined at step four, age, education, and work experience. See Hancock v. Astrue, 667 F.3d 470, 472-73 (4th Cir. 2012). The Commissioner must prove not only that the claimant's RFC will allow the claimant to make an adjustment to other work, but also that the other work exists in significant numbers in the national economy. See Walls, 296 F.3d at 290; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v). If the claimant can make an adjustment to other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy, then the Commissioner will find that the claimant is not disabled. If the claimant cannot make an adjustment to other work, then the Commissioner will find that the claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v).
The Court reviews an ALJ's decision to determine whether the ALJ applied the correct legal standards and whether the factual findings are supported by substantial evidence. See Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir. 1996). In other words, the issue before the Court "is not whether [Plaintiff] is disabled, but whether the ALJ's finding that [Plaintiff] is not disabled is supported by substantial evidence and was reached based upon a correct application of the relevant law." Id. The Court's review is deferential, as "[t]he findings of the Commissioner of Social Security as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive." 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Under this standard, substantial evidence is less than a preponderance but is enough that a reasonable mind would find it adequate to support the Commissioner's conclusion. See Hancock, 667 F.3d at 472; see also Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 1427 (1971).
In evaluating the evidence in an appeal of a denial of benefits, the court does "not conduct a de novo review of the evidence," Smith v. Schweiker, 795 F.2d 343, 345 (4th Cir. 1986), or undertake to reweigh conflicting evidence, make credibility determinations, or substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner. Hancock, 667 F.3d at 472. Rather, "[t]he duty to resolve conflicts in the evidence rests with the ALJ, not with a reviewing court." Smith v. Chater, 99 F.3d 635, 638 (4th Cir. 1996). When conflicting evidence allows reasonable minds to differ as to whether a claimant is disabled, the responsibility for that decision falls on the ALJ. Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650, 653 (4th Cir. 2005) (per curiam).
Plaintiff contends that the ALJ failed to build an accurate and logical bridge from the ALJ's findings at step three to the mental RFC assessment at steps four and five. Pl.'s Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. 10-12, ECF No. 15-1. She further argues that the ALJ failed to resolve conflicts between the VE's testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles
Social Security Ruling
Mascio v. Colvin, 780 F.3d 632, 636 (4th Cir. 2015) (alteration in original) (footnote omitted) (citations omitted). The Fourth Circuit has held, however, that a per se rule requiring remand when the ALJ does not perform an explicit function-by-function analysis "is inappropriate given that remand would prove futile in cases where the ALJ does not discuss functions that are `irrelevant or uncontested.'" Id. (quoting Cichocki v. Astrue, 729 F.3d 172, 177 (2d Cir. 2013) (per curiam)). Rather, remand may be appropriate "where an ALJ fails to assess a claimant's capacity to perform relevant functions, despite contradictory evidence in the record, or where other inadequacies in the ALJ's analysis frustrate meaningful review." Id. (quoting Cichocki, 729 F.3d at 177). The court in Mascio concluded that remand was appropriate because it was "left to guess about how the ALJ arrived at his conclusions on [the claimant's] ability to perform relevant functions" because the ALJ had "said nothing about [the claimant's] ability to perform them for a full workday," despite conflicting evidence as to the claimant's RFC that the ALJ did not address. Id. at 637; see Monroe v. Colvin, 826 F.3d 176, 187-88 (4th Cir. 2016) (remanding because ALJ erred in not determining claimant's RFC using function-by-function analysis; ALJ erroneously expressed claimant's RFC first and then concluded that limitations caused by claimant's impairments were consistent with that RFC).
The Fourth Circuit further held in Mascio that "an ALJ does not account `for a claimant's limitations in concentration, persistence, and pace by restricting the hypothetical question to simple, routine tasks or unskilled work.'" Mascio, 780 F.3d at 638 (quoting Winschel v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1180 (11th Cir. 2011)). "[T]he ability to perform simple tasks differs from the ability to stay on task. Only the latter limitation would account for a claimant's limitation in concentration, persistence, or pace." Id. The court in Mascio remanded the case for the ALJ to explain why the claimant's moderate limitation in concentration, persistence, or pace at step three did not translate into a limitation in the claimant's RFC. Id. In other words, "[p]ursuant to Mascio, once an ALJ has made a step three finding that a claimant suffers from moderate difficulties in concentration, persistence, or pace, the ALJ must either include a corresponding limitation in her RFC assessment, or explain why no such limitation is necessary." Talmo v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec., Civil Case No. ELH-14-2214, 2015 WL 2395108, at *3 (D. Md. May 19, 2015), report and recommendation adopted (D. Md. June 5, 2015).
Here, the ALJ's inclusion of a limitation in the hypothetical questions to the VE at the hearing and in the assessment of Plaintiff's RFC to performing work "free of fast-paced or team-dependent production requirements" (R. at 52, 149) accounts for Plaintiff's moderate difficulties in concentration, persistence, or pace. See Russo v. Astrue, 421 F. App'x 184, 192 (3d Cir. 2011) (holding that hypothetical question that referenced individual who "would not have a quota to fulfill" accounted for moderate difficulties in concentration, persistence, or pace); Seamon v. Astrue, 364 F. App'x 243, 248 (7th Cir. 2010) (holding that ALJ captured claimant's moderate limitation in concentration, persistence, and pace when ALJ included restriction of "no high production goals"); Arnold v. Barnhart, 473 F.3d 816, 820 (7th Cir. 2007) (using low production standards for moderate limitation in concentration, persistence, and pace); Grant v. Colvin, No. 1:15CV00515, 2016 WL 4007606, at *9 (M.D.N.C. July 26, 2016); see also Sizemore v. Berryhill, 878 F.3d 72, 80-81 (4th Cir. 2017). The ALJ failed, however, to explain how, despite Plaintiff's moderate difficulties in maintaining concentration, persistence, or pace, she could remain on task for at least 90% of an eight-hour workday. The ALJ "must both identify evidence that supports his conclusion and `build an accurate and logical bridge from [that] evidence to his conclusion.'" Woods v. Berryhill, 888 F.3d 686, 694 (4th Cir. 2018) (alteration in original) (quoting Monroe, 826 F.3d at 189). In particular, the ALJ "must build a logical bridge between the limitations he finds and the VE evidence relied upon to carry the Commissioner's burden at step five in finding that there are a significant number of jobs available to a claimant." Brent v. Astrue, 879 F.Supp.2d 941, 953 (N.D. Ill. 2012). An ALJ's failure to do so constitutes reversible error. See Lewis v. Berryhill, 858 F.3d 858, 868 (4th Cir. 2017). Because the ALJ's "analysis is incomplete and precludes meaningful review," remand is appropriate. Monroe, 826 F.3d at 191.
In short, the inadequacy of the ALJ's analysis frustrates meaningful review. See Lanigan v. Berryhill, 865 F.3d 558, 563 (7th Cir. 2017) (remanding because, inter alia, ALJ did not build accurate and logical bridge between claimant's moderate difficulties in various functional areas and ALJ's finding that claimant would not be off task more than 10% of workday); Carter v. Berryhill, No. 2:17-CV-04399, 2018 WL 4169108, at *3 (S.D.W. Va. Aug. 30, 2018) (remanding because ALJ "did not build a bridge from the evidence regarding [the claimant's] limitations to the conclusion that she would be off-task fifteen percent (15%) of the day, in addition to regular breaks"); McLaughlin v. Colvin, 200 F.Supp.3d 591, 602 (D. Md. 2016) (remanding because ALJ's decision failed to explain how, despite claimant's moderate difficulties in maintaining concentration, persistence, or pace, she could remain productive for at least 85% of workday, in light of VE's testimony that individual "off task" more than 15% of workday because of need to take unscheduled breaks could not perform any work); Ashcraft v. Colvin, No. 3:13-cv-00417-RLV-DCK, 2015 WL 9304561, at *11 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 21, 2015) (remanding under fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) because court was unable to review meaningfully ALJ's decision that failed to explain exclusion from RFC assessment an additional limitation of being 20% off task that VE testified would preclude employment). Remand under the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) thus is warranted. See Monroe, 826 F.3d at 189.
Plaintiff next asserts that the ALJ did not identify conflicts between the VE's testimony and the DOT and did not obtain a reasonable explanation resolving these conflicts. Pl.'s Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. 12-14, ECF No. 15-1. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff's argument is unavailing.
As noted in Part II above, the Commissioner bears the burden at the final step of the five-step sequential evaluation process used to evaluate a claimant's disability claim. Pearson, 810 F.3d at 207. To determine whether sufficient other work exists for the claimant in the national economy, the ALJ relies primarily on the DOT. Id. The ALJ may also use a VE "to address complex aspects of the employment determination, including the expert's observations of what a particular job requires in practice or the availability of given positions in the national economy." Id. SSR 00-4p requires that the ALJ inquire, on the record, whether the VE's testimony conflicts with the DOT, and also requires that the ALJ elicit a reasonable explanation for and resolve conflicts between the VE's testimony and the DOT. Id. at 207-08 (citing SSR 00-4p, 2000 WL 1898704 (Dec. 4, 2000), at *2). The ALJ must, by determining if the VE's explanation is reasonable, resolve conflicts before relying on the VE's evidence to support a determination or decision about whether the claimant is disabled. Id. at 208 (citing same).
An ALJ has not fulfilled his affirmative duty merely because the VE responds "yes" when asked if his testimony is consistent with the DOT. Id. Rather, the ALJ independently must identify apparent conflicts between the VE's testimony and the DOT. Id. at 209. "[I]n many cases, testimony may only appear to conflict with the [DOT], and the [VE] may be able to explain that, in fact, no conflict exists." Id. A VE's testimony that apparently conflicts with the DOT "can only provide substantial evidence if the ALJ has received this explanation from the expert and determined that the explanation is reasonable and provides a basis for relying on the testimony rather than the [DOT]." Id. at 209-10 (citing SSR 00-4p, 2000 WL 1898704, at *2).
"In order for a VE's opinion to be relevant or helpful, it must be based upon a consideration of all the other evidence on the record and must be in response to hypothetical questions which fairly set out all of the plaintiff's impairments." Brinkley v. Astrue, 695 F.Supp.2d 269, 282 (D.S.C. 2010) (citing Walker v. Bowen, 889 F.2d 47, 50 (4th Cir. 1989)). Plaintiff maintains that, contrary to the VE's testimony, a limitation to carrying out simple instructions is inconsistent with the performance of the jobs of inspector and packager. Pl.'s Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. 13, ECF No. 15-1. The jobs of inspector and packager identified by the VE (R. at 53) both involve a DOT reasoning level of two, however. See DOT 559.687-074, 1991 WL 683797 (listed as "inspector and hand packager"); DOT 753.687-038, 1991 WL 680354 (listed as "packing-line worker"). According to Appendix C of the DOT, 1991 WL 688702, level-two reasoning skills are defined as the skills to "[a]pply commonsense understanding to carry out detailed but uninvolved written or oral instructions. Deal with problems involving a few concrete variables in or from standardized situations." "[R]easoning levels of two are consistent with limitations to simple instructions and routine tasks." Davis v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., Civil No. SAG-11-2779, 2011 WL 153594, at *2 (D. Md. Jan. 14, 2013); see Dillon v. Astrue, Civil Action No. TMD 08-2597, 2011 WL 337334, at *5 (D. Md. Jan. 31, 2011) (performance of jobs with reasoning level of two is not inconsistent with limitation to simple, routine, repetitive tasks); accord Hackett v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1168, 1176 (10th Cir. 2005) (holding that "level-two reasoning appears more consistent with claimant's RFC" to "simple and routine work tasks"). A limitation to simple instructions thus does not conflict with the performance of the jobs of inspector and packager.
Further, Plaintiff's reliance on Henderson v. Colvin, 643 F. App'x 273 (4th Cir. 2016) (per curiam), is unavailing.
Simons v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec., Civil Case No. RDB-17-1837, 2018 WL 3416943, at *3 n.2 (D. Md. July 13, 2018) (alteration in original) (citation omitted) (quoting Henderson, 643 F. App'x at 277). Plaintiff's contention thus is without merit.
Plaintiff also contends that the ALJ never identified the conflict between the limitations of frequent reaching, frequent handling, and frequent near acuity (R. at 52, 149) and the requirements of the jobs of packager (requiring constant reaching and constant handling) and sorter (requiring constant handling and constant near acuity). Pl.'s Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. 14, ECF No. 15-1. The VE testified, however, that, on the basis of his experience, he had reduced in his testimony the number of available packager jobs to account for the ALJ's hypothetical questions involving limitations to, among other things, frequent bilateral reaching and frequent handling. R. at 55. In fact, the VE expressly accounted for frequent reaching and so forth by reducing the number of available sorter, inspector, and packager jobs accordingly. R. at 53, 55. The ALJ acknowledged the VE's explanation regarding his testimony that conflicted with the DOT but was based on his professional experience. R. at 164. For these reasons, Plaintiff's arguments regarding the identification and resolution of conflicts between the VE's testimony and the DOT fail.
In short, the inadequacy of the ALJ's analysis frustrates meaningful review. Remand under the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) thus is warranted. See Monroe, 826 F.3d at 189. Because remand is granted on other grounds, the Court does not address Plaintiff's remaining arguments. See Testamark v. Berryhill, 736 F. App'x 395, 399 n.2 (4th Cir. 2018) (per curiam). In any event, the ALJ also should address these other deficiencies identified by Plaintiff. See Roxin v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., Civil No. SAG-14-2311, 2015 WL 3616889, at *4 (D. Md. June 5, 2015); Lawson v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., Civil No. SAG-14-2202, 2015 WL 660827, at *1-2 (D. Md. Feb. 13, 2015).
For the reasons stated above, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 20) is
Hardy v. Colvin, Civil Action No. TMD 11-02793, 2013 WL 4478025, at *4 (D. Md. Aug. 19, 2013) (alteration in original) (quoting Hall-Grover v. Barnhart, No. 03-239-P-C, 2004 WL 1529283, at *4 (D. Me. Apr. 30, 2004)).
