THOMAS M. DiGIROLAMO, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Connie 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 application for Supplemental Security Income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. Before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and alternative motion for remand (ECF No. 14) and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 17).
On February 12, 2016, Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") Michael A. Krasnow held a hearing in Washington, D.C., where Plaintiff and a vocational expert ("VE") testified. R. at 33-60. The ALJ thereafter found on March 9, 2016, that Plaintiff was not disabled since the application date of November 30, 2012. R. at 14-32. In so finding, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had the residual functional capacity ("RFC")
R. at 22. In light of this RFC and the VE's testimony, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was capable of performing work in the national economy such as a pre-assembler for printed circuit boards, inspector, or router. R at 26-27. The ALJ thus found that Plaintiff was not disabled since the application date of November 30, 2012. R. at 27.
After the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review, Plaintiff filed on May 18, 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 erroneously assessed her RFC contrary to Social Security Ruling
The Court first turns to the ALJ's assessment of Plaintiff's RFC. SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184 (July 2, 1996), explains how adjudicators should assess RFC and instructs that the RFC
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).
Plaintiff contends that, in light of opinion evidence in the record, substantial evidence does not support the ALJ's determination that she can perform a range of light work. Pl.'s Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. 6-7, ECF No. 14-1. "Light work involves lifting no more than 20 pounds at a time with frequent lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to 10 pounds." 20 C.F.R. § 416.967(b). "Even though the weight lifted may be very little, a job is in this category when it requires a good deal of walking or standing, or when it involves sitting most of the time with some pushing and pulling of arm or leg controls." Id. "[T]he full range of light work requires standing or walking, off and on, for a total of approximately 6 hours of an 8-hour workday." SSR 83-10, 1983 WL 31251, at *6 (Jan. 1, 1983).
The ALJ here found that Plaintiff had the RFC to perform light work except she could stand and walk for a total of four hours and sit up to six hours in an eight-hour workday. R. at 22. The VE testified that, "[b]ecause of the standing and walking only up to four hours, it's kind of like putting in a sit-stand option there for the light jobs." R. at 55. Plaintiff maintains that substantial evidence does not support the ALJ's RFC assessment because one of the state agency medical consultants, M. Lowen, M.D., opined that she was capable of (1) lifting and/or carrying up to ten pounds occasionally and less than ten pounds frequently, (2) standing and/or walking for a total of two hours, (3) sitting for a total of about six hours in an eight-hour workday; and (4) performing sedentary work. R. at 93-97. The ALJ gave "little weight to Dr. Lowen's opinion because the medical evidence of record does not support the degree of limitation with respect to standing and walking to two hours and never crouching." R. at 24. The ALJ then reviewed the relevant medical evidence, including, among other things, treatment of Plaintiff's pain by medication prescribed by her primary care provider and examinations revealing intact lower extremity range of motion and strength. R. at 24.
Plaintiff also contends that the ALJ erred in considering the opinion of Dr. Gerald Lee, the consultative examiner who reported that she had an antalgic, slow gait and that her ability to bear weight was limited, secondary to low back pain. R. at 333, 335-36. Dr. Lee opined, however, that Plaintiff did not need to use a cane and appeared to be exaggerating an antalgic gait. R. at 75. Dr. Lee opined that Plaintiff was "able to perform work-related activities such as walking, standing, sitting, handling objects, hearing, speaking, and traveling. She would experience difficulties with climbing, bending, and heavy lifting." R. at 336. Dr. Lee also opined to a state agency medical consultant that Plaintiff would have no problem standing and walking during an eight-hour workday with intermittent sitting. R. at 24, 75. The ALJ gave significant weight to Dr. Lee's opinion because it was consistent with his examination findings and observations. R. at 24-25. Plaintiff further asserts that the ALJ erred in giving little weight to the opinion of her primary care physician, N. Jayanthan, M.D., who opined, among other things, that she could lift and/or carry no more than ten pounds, stand and/or walk for less than an hour, and sit for fifteen to twenty minutes at a time in an eight-hour workday. R. at 25, 435.
Although the ALJ here found that Plaintiff had the RFC to perform light work, he did not explain his conclusion that, on the basis of the evidence in the record, Plaintiff could actually perform the tasks required by light work, such as lifting no more than 20 pounds at a time and frequently lifting or carrying up to 10 pounds. See SSR 83-10, 1983 WL 31251, at *5-6 (Jan. 1, 1983); see also Woods v. Berryhill, 888 F.3d 686, 694 (4th Cir. 2018). The ALJ "must both identify evidence that supports his conclusion and `build an accurate and logical bridge from [that] evidence to his conclusion.'" Woods, 888 F.3d at 694 (alteration in original) (quoting Monroe, 826 F.3d at 189). An ALJ's failure to do so constitutes reversible error. Lewis v. Berryhill, 858 F.3d 858, 868 (4th Cir. 2017). Because "meaningful review is frustrated when an ALJ goes straight from listing evidence to stating a conclusion," the Court remands this case for further explanation as to Plaintiff's RFC to perform light work. Thomas v. Berryhill, 916 F.3d 307, 311 (4th Cir. 2019) (citing Woods, 888 F.3d at 694).
Plaintiff also maintains that the ALJ failed to address previous ALJs' decisions under Acquiescence Ruling 00-1(4), 2000 WL 43774 (Jan. 12, 2000), and erroneously evaluated her subjective complaints. Pl.'s Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. 7-11, ECF No. 14-1. 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); Boone v. Barnhart, 353 F.3d 203, 211 n.19 (3d Cir. 2003). In any event, the ALJ also should address these other deficiencies identified by Plaintiff. See Hancock v. Barnhart, 206 F.Supp.2d 757, 763 n.3 (W.D. Va. 2002) (on remand, ALJ's prior decision has no preclusive effect as it is vacated and new hearing is conducted de novo).
For the reasons stated above, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 17) is
