THOMAS M. DiGIROLAMO, Magistrate Judge.
Peter Bird ("Plaintiff") 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 his applications for disability insurance benefits ("DIB") and Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. Before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 18) and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 20).
Plaintiff was born in 1958, has a high-school education, and previously worked as a security screener and security-system operator. R. at 28, 42, 44. Plaintiff applied for DIB protectively on April 27, 2010, and for SSI on May 6, 2010, alleging disability beginning on April 1, 2010, due to a stroke. R. at 29-30, 232-42, 264. The Commissioner denied Plaintiff's applications initially and again on reconsideration; consequently, Plaintiff requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"). R. at 101-04, 127-41. On November 17, 2011, ALJ C.J. Sturek held a hearing at which Plaintiff and a vocational expert ("VE") testified. R. at 71-100. On December 1, 2011, the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision. R. at 105-21. On October 2, 2012, the Appeals Council granted Plaintiff's request for review, vacated the ALJ's decision, and remanded the case for further proceedings. R. at 122-25.
On April 29, 2013, the ALJ held a supplemental hearing at which Plaintiff and another VE testified. R. at 37-70. On May 6, 2013, the ALJ issued a partially favorable decision finding Plaintiff was not disabled before his 55th birthday, but became disabled on that date through the date of the decision. R. at 13-36. Plaintiff sought review of this decision by the Appeals Council, which denied Plaintiff's request for review on July 23, 2013. R. at 1-5. The ALJ's decision thus became the final decision of the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.981, 416.1481; see also Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103, 106-07, 120 S.Ct. 2080, 2083 (2000).
On September 25, 2013, Plaintiff filed 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 subsequently was reassigned to the undersigned. The parties have briefed the issues, and the matter is now fully submitted.
On August 5, 2010, Sisom Osia, M.D., conducted a consultative examination of Plaintiff. R. at 364-70. The doctor's musculoskeletal examination revealed that Plaintiff had full muscle strength, normal cervical range of motion, and normal range of motion in both elbows. R. at 368. Lumbar range of motion demonstrated "90 degrees flexion without pain." R. at 368. Plaintiff reported the following limitations to Dr. Osia:
R. at 368.
Dr. Osia's remarks included the following:
R. at 368-69.
On October 5, 2010, Jerry Mann, M.D., a state agency medical consultant, assessed Plaintiff's physical residual functional capacity ("RFC"). R. at 373-80. Dr. Mann opined that Plaintiff could (1) lift and/or carry 50 pounds occasionally and 25 pounds frequently; (2) stand and/or walk for a total of about six hours in an eight-hour workday; (3) sit for about six hours in an eight-hour workday; and (4) perform unlimited pushing and/or pulling. R. at 374. Plaintiff occasionally could kneel and crawl and frequently could climb, balance, stoop, and crouch. R. at 375. He had no manipulative, visual, communicative, or environmental limitations, however. R. at 376-77. Dr. Mann found no medical evidence in the record to support Plaintiff's allegation of a stroke and that his activities of daily living were not wholly consistent with the objective physical evidence. R. at 380.
On October 22, 2010, Plaintiff underwent an MRI of his lumbar spine (R. at 466-69), which revealed the following:
R. at 469.
On November 1, 2010, Plaintiff visited J. Alex Thomas, M.D., for a neurosurgical follow-up visit. R. at 494-96. Dr. Thomas noted the following:
R. at 495-96.
On December 27, 2010, an X-ray of Plaintiff's lumbar spine revealed mild degenerative change and no acute abnormalities. R. at 390.
On December 29, 2010, another state agency medical consultant, S.K. Najar, M.D., also assessed Plaintiff's physical RFC. R. at 391-98. Dr. Najar opined that Plaintiff could (1) lift and/or carry 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently; (2) stand and/or walk for a total of at least two hours in an eight-hour workday; (3) sit for about six hours in an eight-hour workday; and (4) perform limited pushing and/or pulling with the left leg. R. at 392. Plaintiff occasionally could balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, crawl, and climb ramps and stairs (but never ladders, ropes, or scaffolds). R. at 393. He had no manipulative, visual, communicative, or environmental limitations. R. at 394-95.
On January 19, 2011, Vaul Phillips, M.D., conducted a consultative musculoskeletal examination of Plaintiff. R. at 399-406. Dr. Phillips's diagnosis included the following:
R. at 402.
On January 25, 2011, Dr. Najar affirmed his RFC assessment after reviewing Dr. Phillips's report. R. at 27, 407.
In his decision, the ALJ reviewed Plaintiff's testimony as follows:
R. at 22-23; see R. at 42-64.
The VE classified Plaintiff's past work as a security screener and security-system operator as semi-skilled and light.
On May 6, 2013, the ALJ found that Plaintiff (1) had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset date of disability of April 1, 2010; and (2) had an impairment or a combination of impairments considered to be "severe" on the basis of the requirements in the Code of Federal Regulations; but (3) did not have an impairment or a combination of impairments meeting or equaling one of the impairments set forth in 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1; and (4) was unable to perform his past relevant work; but (5) could perform other work in the national economy before his 55th birthday, such as a machine tender or packer/packaging worker. R. at 19-29. The ALJ accordingly found that he was not disabled before his 55th birthday but that he became disabled on that date through the date of the decision. R. at 29.
In so finding, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had the RFC
R. at 21.
The ALJ found that Plaintiff's severe impairments included obesity, residuals of a stroke, degenerative joint disease of the left knee, and lumbar disc disease. R. at 20. Specifically considering §§ 1.02, 1.04, and 11.04, the ALJ found that Plaintiff's impairments did not meet or medically equal the criteria of any impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1. R. at 20-21. The ALJ further found that Plaintiff's obesity did not result in sufficient symptoms or functional impairment to meet or medically equal a listed impairment. R. at 21.
Regarding Plaintiff's credibility, the ALJ found that Plaintiff's activities of daily living were not entirely consistent with his allegations of total disability and that the medical evidence of record did not corroborate his allegations of totally disabling physical symptoms and limitations. R. at 23. The ALJ thus found that his "medically[]determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms; however, [his] statements concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of these symptoms are not entirely credible." R. at 23. The ALJ found that,
R. at 26. The ALJ also weighed the opinion evidence in the record, giving some weight, but not great weight, to the opinions of the state agency consultants and the consultative examiners "because these examining and non-examining physicians did not have the benefit of a complete record." R. at 27.
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, 379-380 (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 his RFC contrary to Social Security Ruling
Plaintiff's argument is without merit. A "non-examining physician's opinion cannot, by itself, serve as substantial evidence supporting a denial of disability benefits when it is contradicted by all of the other evidence in the record." Smith, 795 F.2d at 345. However, "the testimony of a non-examining physician can be relied upon when it is consistent with the record." Id. at 346.
Here, the ALJ afforded the opinions of the examining and non-examining physicians "some" weight, but not "great" weight, because these physicians "did not have the benefit of a complete record." R. at 27. Rather, the ALJ noted the findings of Plaintiff's October 2010 MRI, but further noted that this MRI's findings conflicted with the December 2010 X-ray of Defendant's lumbar spine that showed only mild degenerative change and no acute abnormalities. R. at 25, 390, 469. As noted in Part V above, the duty to resolve conflicts in the evidence rests with the ALJ, not with the Court. Johnson, 434 F.3d at 653; Smith, 99 F.3d at 638; see Seacrist v. Weinberger, 538 F.2d 1054, 1056-57 (4th Cir. 1976) ("[I]t is the responsibility of the [Commissioner] and not the courts to reconcile inconsistencies in the medical evidence, and that it is the claimant who bears the risk of nonpersuasion." (footnote omitted)). In this case, "while the state agency consultants [and consultative examiners] did not have the benefit of a full record, the ALJ did," Tanner v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 14-1272, 2015 WL 574222, at *5 (4th Cir. Feb. 12, 2015) (per curiam), and found that "[t]he medical evidence and other evidence of record suggest that [Plaintiff] can sustain a greater capacity than he described at the hearing." R. at 27. The ALJ noted that Dr. Osia, a consultative examiner, opined in August 2010 that physical examination of Plaintiff and the record did not support his claim and that he did not need a cane despite using one. R. at 24-25, 369. Dr. Thomas, who did review the October 2010 MRI, noted on examination in November 2010 that Plaintiff demonstrated full bilateral strength in his lower extremities. R. at 25, 495. The ALJ also found that Plaintiff's functional limitations as opined by another consultative examiner, Dr. Phillips, who noted Plaintiff's complaints of low back pain and a decreased range of motion of 10 to 15%, did "not evince a person who is entirely incapable of working." R. at 25; see R. at 402.
Further, the ALJ reviewed Plaintiff's reported activities of daily living and his hearing testimony to find his "statements concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of [his] symptoms . . . not entirely credible" (R. at 23), which Plaintiff has not disputed and substantial evidence supports. See Johnson, 434 F.3d at 658; Gross v. Heckler, 785 F.2d 1163, 1166 (4th Cir. 1986) (per curiam). Notably, the ALJ found that "the fact that he has lived with the pain without taking any prescription pain medications, and has conducted a fairly significant range of independent activities of daily living for over two and one-half years since surgery was recommended, is remarkable." R. at 26. The ALJ also noted that Plaintiff's receipt of unemployment benefits belied his allegations of total disability (R. at 24). See Schmidt v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 737, 746 (7th Cir. 2005) ("[W]e are not convinced that a Social Security claimant's decision to apply for unemployment benefits and represent to state authorities and prospective employers that he is able and willing to work should play absolutely no role in assessing his subjective complaints of disability."); Cox v. Apfel, 160 F.3d 1203, 1208 (8th Cir. 1998) (stating that "the acceptance of unemployment benefits, which entails an assertion of the ability to work, is facially inconsistent with a claim of disability," but noting that ALJ cannot base adverse credibility finding on this fact alone); Ingrodi v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., Civil No. SAG-13-3283, 2015 WL 222174, at *2 (D. Md. Jan. 12, 2015). For these reasons, the lack of consideration of Plaintiff's October 2010 MRI by the state agency medical consultants and consultative examiners does not warrant remand.
Plaintiff further maintains that, given his vocational profile, he would be considered disabled before his 55th birthday under 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 2, § 201.14, if he were limited to performing sedentary work. Pl.'s Mem. Supp. Summ. J. 7, ECF No. 18-1. At the April 2013 hearing, Defendant's counsel argued that limiting Plaintiff to sedentary work was "mostly consistent" with Dr. Najar's opinion that Plaintiff was able to (1) lift and/or carry 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently; (2) stand and/or walk for a total of at least two hours in an eight-hour workday; (3) sit for about six hours in an eight-hour workday; and (4) perform limited pushing and/or pulling with the left leg. R. at 41, 392. Such limitations, however, actually are consistent with light work, which "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. §§ 404.1567(b), 416.967(b). "If someone can do light work, [the Commissioner determines] that he or she can also do sedentary work, unless there are additional limiting factors such as loss of fine dexterity or inability to sit for long periods of time." Id. In fact, the VE testified that the exertional limitations opined by Dr. Najar would limit a person to a full range of sedentary work but not preclude him from performing less than a full range of light work. R. at 64. The VE further testified about the availability of light, unskilled jobs that would be available to such a person with additional non-exertional limitations (R. at 65-67). See Walker v. Bowen, 889 F.2d 47, 49 (4th Cir. 1989).
Moreover, despite Plaintiff's contention that the ALJ failed to explain his finding that Plaintiff was able to remain productive more than 80% of the time (Pl.'s Mem. Supp. Summ. J. 6, ECF No. 18-1 (citing R. at 21)), Plaintiff points to no evidence that he would have a 20% reduction in productivity as a result of his impairments, see Jeffress v. Astrue, No. 3:11-CV-806-HEH, 2012 WL 3866536, at *15 (E.D. Va. Aug. 21, 2012), report and recommendation adopted, No. 3:11CV806-HEH, 2012 WL 3851222 (E.D. Va. Sept. 5, 2012), and "has failed to point to any specific piece of evidence not considered by the Commissioner that might have changed the outcome of his disability claim." Reid v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 769 F.3d 861, 865 (4th Cir. 2014). "[I]f the decision `is overwhelmingly supported by the record though the agency's original opinion failed to marshal that support, then remanding is a waste of time.'" Bishop v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 583 F. App'x 65, 67 (4th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (quoting Spiva v. Astrue, 628 F.3d 346, 353 (7th Cir. 2010) (Posner, J.)).
In short, substantial evidence supports the decision of the ALJ, who applied the correct legal standards in this case. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 20) is
