ELLEN S. CARMODY, Magistrate Judge.
This is an action pursuant to Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), to review a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff's claim for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. The parties have agreed to proceed in this Court for all further proceedings, including an order of final judgment. Section 405(g) limits the Court to a review of the administrative record and provides that if the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence it shall be conclusive. The Commissioner has found that Plaintiff is not disabled within the meaning of the Act. For the reasons articulated herein, the Commissioner's decision is
The Court's jurisdiction is confined to a review of the Commissioner's decision and of the record made in the administrative hearing process. See Willbanks v. Sec'y of Health and Human Services, 847 F.2d 301, 303 (6th Cir. 1988). The scope of judicial review in a social security case is limited to determining whether the Commissioner applied the proper legal standards in making her decision and whether there exists in the record substantial evidence supporting that decision. See Brainard v. Sec'y of Health and Human Services, 889 F.2d 679, 681 (6th Cir. 1989). The Court may not conduct a de novo review of the case, resolve evidentiary conflicts, or decide questions of credibility. See Garner v. Heckler, 745 F.2d 383, 387 (6th Cir. 1984). It is the Commissioner who is charged with finding the facts relevant to an application for disability benefits, and her findings are conclusive provided they are supported by substantial evidence. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla, but less than a preponderance. See Cohen v. Sec'y of Dep't of Health and Human Services, 964 F.2d 524, 528 (6th Cir. 1992) (citations omitted). It is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. See Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971); Bogle v. Sullivan, 998 F.2d 342, 347 (6th Cir. 1993). In determining the substantiality of the evidence, the Court must consider the evidence on the record as a whole and take into account whatever in the record fairly detracts from its weight. See Richardson v. Sec'y of Health and Human Services, 735 F.2d 962, 963 (6th Cir. 1984). As has been widely recognized, the substantial evidence standard presupposes the existence of a zone within which the decision maker can properly rule either way, without judicial interference. See Mullen v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 535, 545 (6th Cir. 1986) (citation omitted). This standard affords to the administrative decision maker considerable latitude, and indicates that a decision supported by substantial evidence will not be reversed simply because the evidence would have supported a contrary decision. See Bogle, 998 F.2d at 347; Mullen, 800 F.2d at 545.
Plaintiff was 41 years of age on her alleged disability onset date. (PageID.209). She successfully completed high school, but has no past relevant work. (PageID.52). Plaintiff applied for benefits on February 27, 2014, alleging that she had been disabled since June 2, 2007, due to low back pain, anxiety, depression, cervical fusion, chronic headaches, right shoulder pain, bilateral knee pain, bilateral hand/wrist pain, and IBS. (PageID.209-16, 232). Plaintiff's applications were denied, after which time she requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). (PageID.108-207).
On December 31, 2015, Plaintiff appeared before ALJ Donna Grit with testimony being offered by Plaintiff and a vocational expert. (PageID.68-106). In a written decision dated April 1, 2016, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff was not disabled. (PageID.41-54). The Appeals Council declined to review the ALJ's determination, rendering it the Commissioner's final decision in the matter. (PageID.32-36). Plaintiff subsequently initiated this appeal pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of the ALJ's decision.
Plaintiff's insured status expired on September 30, 2014. (PageID.43). To be eligible for Disability Insurance Benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, Plaintiff must establish that she became disabled prior to the expiration of her insured status. See 42 U.S.C. § 423; Moon v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1175, 1182 (6th Cir. 1990).
The social security regulations articulate a five-step sequential process for evaluating disability. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a-f), 416.920(a-f).
The burden of establishing the right to benefits rests squarely on Plaintiff's shoulders, and she can satisfy her burden by demonstrating that her impairments are so severe that she is unable to perform her previous work, and cannot, considering her age, education, and work experience, perform any other substantial gainful employment existing in significant numbers in the national economy. See 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A); Cohen, 964 F.2d at 528. While the burden of proof shifts to the Commissioner at step five, Plaintiff bears the burden of proof through step four of the procedure, the point at which her residual functioning capacity (RFC) is determined. See Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 n.5 (1987); Walters v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 127 F.3d 525, 528 (6th Cir. 1997) (ALJ determines RFC at step four, at which point claimant bears the burden of proof).
The ALJ determined that Plaintiff suffered from: (1) degenerative change of the right knee and chondromalacia of the patella status post anterior cruciate ligament repair; (2) status post cervical fusion; (3) degenerative lumbar disc disease; (4) right shoulder osteoarthritis; (5) fibromyalgia; (6) headaches; and (7) hypertension, severe impairments that whether considered alone or in combination with other impairments, failed to satisfy the requirements of any impairment identified in the Listing of Impairments detailed in 20 C.F.R., Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. (PageID.44-47).
With respect to Plaintiff's residual functional capacity, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff retained the capacity to perform light work subject to the following limitations: (1) she can lift, carry, push, and pull 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently; (2) during an 8hour workday, she can stand/walk for 5 hours and sit for 8 hours; (3) she cannot crawl or climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; (4) she occasionally stoop, crouch, kneel, reach overhead, and climb ramps/stairs; (5) she cannot be exposed to extremes of heat, cold, or humidity. (PageID.47).
The ALJ found that Plaintiff was unable to perform her past relevant work at which point the burden of proof shifted to the Commissioner to establish by substantial evidence that a significant number of jobs exist in the national economy which Plaintiff could perform, her limitations notwithstanding. See Richardson, 735 F.2d at 964. While the ALJ is not required to question a vocational expert on this issue, Aa finding supported by substantial evidence that a claimant has the vocational qualifications to perform specific jobs" is needed to meet the burden. O'Banner v. Sec'y of Health and Human Services, 587 F.2d 321, 323 (6th Cir. 1978) (emphasis added). This standard requires more than mere intuition or conjecture by the ALJ that the claimant can perform specific jobs in the national economy. See Richardson, 735 F.2d at 964. Accordingly, ALJs routinely question vocational experts in an attempt to determine whether there exist a significant number of jobs which a particular claimant can perform, his limitations notwithstanding. Such was the case here, as the ALJ questioned a vocational expert.
The vocational expert testified that there existed approximately 150,000 jobs in the national economy which an individual with Plaintiff's RFC could perform, such limitations notwithstanding. (PageID.100-05). This represents a significant number of jobs. See, e.g., Taskila v. Commissioner of Social Security, 819 F.3d 902, 905 (6th Cir. 2016) ("[s]ix thousand jobs in the United States fits comfortably within what this court and others have deemed `significant'"). Accordingly, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff was not entitled to disability benefits.
The medical evidence presented to the ALJ was extensive. The ALJ described this evidence as follows:
(PageID.48-50).
A claimant's RFC represents the "most [a claimant] can still do despite [her] limitations." Sullivan v. Commissioner of Social Security, 595 Fed. Appx. 502, 505 (6th Cir., Dec. 12, 2014); see also, Social Security Ruling 96-8P, 1996 WL 374184 at *1 (Social Security Administration, July 2, 1996) (a claimant's RFC represents her ability to perform "work-related physical and mental activities in a work setting on a regular and continuing basis," defined as "8 hours a day, for 5 days a week, or an equivalent work schedule"). As noted above, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff can perform a limited range of light work. Plaintiff argues that she is entitled to relief because the ALJ's RFC assessment is not supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to consider her depression and anxiety and, moreover, "cherry picked the portions of the opinion evidence that favor non-disability." As noted above, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff experiences no emotionally-based limitations. While the record does not contain an abundance of evidence concerning Plaintiff's emotional impairments, this evidence nevertheless compels the conclusion that the ALJ's RFC assessment, by failing to impose any non-exertional limitations, is not supported by substantial evidence.
In January 2007, Plaintiff was involuntarily hospitalized for psychiatric treatment following an overdose of alcohol and prescription medications. (PageID.294-302). Upon discharge, one week later, Plaintiff was diagnosed with major depressive disorder, recurrent, severe without psychotic features. (PageID.294-302). On November 27, 2012, Plaintiff reported to the emergency department "for evaluation of multiple [physical] symptoms." (PageID.1196). Plaintiff was referred for a psychiatric consult which revealed Plaintiff was experiencing: (1) panic disorder, in partial remission; (2) major depressive disorder, recurrent, moderate; and (3) alcohol dependence, in early partial remission. (PageID.1198-1202).
Treatment notes dated April 2, 2013, indicate that Plaintiff was being treated for depression. (PageID.771). Treatment notes dated October 3, 2013, indicate Plaintiff was experiencing depression and "recurrent" anxiety. (PageID.815-17). Plaintiff reported her anxiety improves with medication, but is exacerbated by "work stress." (PageID.815). Physical examination notes dated June 3, 2014, indicate that Plaintiff was also "somewhat depressed and anxious." (PageID.1448-49). The doctor noted that Plaintiff "may have underlying PTSD with associated anxiety features which may be aggravating her physical complaints." (PageID.1452).
On June 10, 2014, Plaintiff participated in a consultive psychological examination. (PageID.1455-61). The examiner reported that he "did not see any evidence of a serious mental disorder," but subsequently reported that Plaintiff suffers from an "unspecified anxiety disorder." (PageID.1460). Treatment notes dated December 23, 2015, indicate that Plaintiff was experiencing anxiety and depression. (PageID.1687).
Simply put, while Plaintiff's emotional impairments may not constitute work preclusive impairments, the conclusion that such impose no limitations on her ability to function is not supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the ALJ's RFC assessment is not supported by substantial evidence. Because the vocational expert's testimony was premised upon a faulty RFC determination, the ALJ's reliance thereon does not constitute substantial evidence. See Cline v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 96 F.3d 146, 150 (6th Cir. 1996) (while the ALJ may rely upon responses to hypothetical questions posed to a vocational expert, such questions must accurately portray the claimant's impairments).
While the Court finds that the ALJ's decision fails to comply with the relevant legal standards, Plaintiff can be awarded benefits only if Aall essential factual issues have been resolved" and Athe record adequately establishes [her] entitlement to benefits." Faucher v. Secretary of Health and Human Serv's, 17 F.3d 171, 176 (6th Cir. 1994); see also, Brooks v. Commissioner of Social Security, 531 Fed. Appx. 636, 644 (6th Cir., Aug. 6, 2013). This latter requirement is satisfied Awhere the proof of disability is overwhelming or where proof of disability is strong and evidence to the contrary is lacking." Faucher, 17 F.3d at 176; see also, Brooks, 531 Fed. Appx. at 644. Evaluation of Plaintiff's claim requires the resolution of factual disputes which this Court is neither competent nor authorized to undertake in the first instance. Moreover, there does not exist compelling evidence that Plaintiff is disabled. Accordingly, this matter must be remanded for further administrative action.
For the reasons articulated herein, the Court concludes that the ALJ's decision is not supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the Commissioner's decision is
