ROBERT H. WALKER, Magistrate Judge.
Through counsel, Plaintiff Ruthie Buckley filed this action July 28, 2015, seeking judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and § 1383(c)(3) of the denial of Buckley's claims for Social Security disability and Supplemental Security Income benefits.
On July 26, 2013, Buckley filed applications for Social Security disability benefits and supplemental security income, alleging disability since March 29, 2013, at age 53,
Buckley testified she was not married, had a GED, but no driver's license,
Buckley estimated she could lift and carry about five pounds across a room, stated it would be a struggle to stand for thirty minutes without a cane, and that she could sit perhaps twenty minutes before having to get up and move around. She testified that before she quit working, she walked eight miles (four miles each way) to and from work each day, then her knees "popped" and she could no longer do it. Buckley stated she frequently fell when her knees started giving out. She does not lie down during the day; her most comfortable position is sitting with her feet up. She cannot crawl, and if she got down on her knees, she would require help getting up; she states she would likely miss work three days a week due to her knees. [11, pp. 52-55] Buckley reported her attention span is "great," she has no problem following spoken instructions, dealing with authority figures or changes in routine, and she deals with stress. [11, pp. 243, 245]
With respect to daily living activities, Buckley testified she lives in her own house, and two grandchildren and her 31-year old daughter live with her. Her daughter does the grocery shopping and laundry,
Vocational Expert (VE) Ronald T. Smith testified all Buckley's past relevant employment has been as a housekeeper, DOT # 323.687-014, which is classified as light, unskilled work, SVP (specific vocational preparation) level 2.
Judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is limited to determining whether substantial record evidence supports the Commissioner's factual findings, and whether such findings are reached through the application of correct legal standards. Perez v. Barnhart, 415 F.3d 457, 461 (5th Cir. 2005); Falco v. Shalala, 27 F.3d 160, 162 (5th Cir. 1994). Substantial evidence is "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). It is more than a scintilla, but less than a preponderance. Harris v. Apfel, 209 F.3d 413, 417 (5th Cir. 2000); Villa v. Sullivan, 895 F.2d 1019, 1022 (5th Cir. 1990). The Court reviews the entire record to determine whether substantial evidence supports the Commissioner's decision. Villa, 895 F. 2d at 1022. Credibility of witnesses and conflicts in the evidence are issues for resolution by the Commissioner, not the Court. It is not the Court's prerogative to substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner or to re-weigh the evidence. Audler v. Astrue, 501 F.3d 446, 447 (5th Cir. 2007); Harris, 209 F.3d at 417 (quoting Ripley v. Chater, 67 F.3d 552, 555 (5th Cir. 1995)); Johnson v. Bowen, 864 F.2d 340, 343-44 (5
The Social Security Act defines disability as "inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months..." 42 U.S.C.A. § 423(d)(1)(A). As the one claiming disability, Buckley had the burden to prove a disability which precluded her from engaging in substantial gainful work during the pendency of her applications for benefits. Masterson v. Barnhart, 309 F.3d 267, 271 (5th Cir. 2002); Wren v. Sullivan, 925 F.2d 123, 125 (5th Cir. 1991); Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 (1987); Anthony v. Sullivan, 954 F.2d 289, 293 (5th Cir. 1992) ("suffering of some impairment does not establish disability; a claimant is disabled only if [she] is `incapable of engaging in any substantial gainful activity'").
ALJ Wallis applied the correct law for determining disability — following the five-step sequential evaluation process set out at 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4)(i-v). The party claiming disability has the burden of proof at the first four steps of the evaluation process. Leggett, 67 F.3d at 564; Greenspan v. Shalala, 38 F.3d 232, 236 (5th Cir. 1994). Step one requires determination of whether the claimant is engaging in substantial gainful activity, i.e., work that involves significant physical or mental activities and is usually done for pay or profit. Judge Wallis found Buckley had not engaged in such activity since March 29, 2013. At step two the ALJ determines whether claimant has a medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments which meets the duration requirement and is severe, i.e., which significantly limits her ability to perform basic work activities. ALJ Wallis found Buckley has severe impairments of a disorder of the back, degenerative joint disease, high blood pressure and obesity. Due to the lack of objective documentation of treatment or diagnosis by an acceptable medical source regarding Buckley's claimed heart attack in the past, the ALJ found that condition "cannot be medically determined." [11, p. 30]
Step three requires determination of whether the claimant's impairment or combination of impairments is of such severity that it meets or medically equals the criteria of an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. Unless the impairment or combination of impairments is of such severity and meets the duration requirement, the analysis continues to step four. The ALJ found Buckley does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals a listed impairment. Her orthopedic impairments failed to meet Listing 1.02 (major dysfunction of joints) because they were not shown to have the requisite gross anatomical deformity and chronic joint pain and stiffness with signs of limitation or other abnormal motion of the affected joint(s)), accompanied by findings on appropriate medically acceptable imaging of joint space narrowing, bony destruction, or ankylosis of the affected joint, along with an inability to effectively ambulate. Buckley's knee x-rays revealed only moderate joint effusion with mild osteoarthritis, and her medical records consistently note her normal gait and range of motion. [11, pp. 314-316, 326-328, 418-419, 425-426, 404, 408, 284] Her physician noted some swelling of her left knee on October 18, 2013, but no joint instability in either of her knees. [11, pp. 404, 408]
Buckley's back disorder did not meet Listing 1.04 (disorders of the spine) because there was no record evidence of nerve root impingement or nerve root compression characterized by neuro-anatomic distribution of pain, limitation of motion of the spine, motor loss accompanied by sensory or reflex loss, and positive straight leg raising for lower back involvement. Medical sources describe her gait as normal, and indicate she had normal muscle tone, bulk and strength on motor examination. [11, p. 404, 408] The ALJ also found Buckley did not meet Listing 4.02 (chronic heart failure) or 4.04 (ischemic heart disease) due to lack of medical evidence-clinical, laboratory or radiographic findings to establish same, nor did the record establish that her obesity prevented ambulation, reaching, orthopedic and postural maneuvers. In December 2012, an EKG showed normal rhythm and intervals; a later EKG showed regular heart rate and rhythm, no respiratory distress, no murmurs, rubs or gallops and Buckley emphatically denied chest pain or shortness of breath. [11, pp. 350, 308] Even Buckley stated her heart problem does not keep her from working. [11, pp. 235]
At the fourth step of the evaluation, the ALJ must determine (1) the claimant's residual functional capacity, i.e., her ability to do physical and mental work activities on a sustained basis despite limitations from her impairments, and (2) whether she has the residual functional capacity to perform the requirements of her past relevant work. If the claimant can perform the requirements of her past relevant work, she is not disabled. Based on all the record evidence, including the testimony of the VE, the ALJ found even with her severe impairments, Buckley remained able to perform her past work, and was therefore not disabled under the Social Security Act. Considering the entire record, ALJ Wallis found Buckley retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to lift, carry, push and pull up to twenty pounds occasionally and ten pounds frequently; to stand/walk six hours in an eight hour work day and sit a like period of time; to occasionally climb, balance, stoop, kneel, crouch and crawl. And Buckley herself stated her attention span is "great," she has no problem following spoken instructions, dealing with authority figures or changes in routine, and she can deal with stress. [11, pp. 243, 245]
In making his finding regarding Buckley's RFC, the ALJ carefully evaluated the record evidence, identifying and explaining his reasons for the weight given to particular evidence. ALJ Wallis noted Buckley's multiple pain complaints,
The parties agree that denial of a disability claim at step four must include findings of fact of the claimant's RFC, the physical (and mental, if applicable) demands of her past work, and whether her RFC would permit a return to her past work. [14, p. 3], [17, p. 5] However, it appears to be Buckley's contention that the ALJ's finding her capable of performing her past relevant work as a housekeeper is contrary to law for lack of specific details regarding how Buckley performed her work in the past. The Court finds no merit in this contention. ALJ Wallis made the requisite finding of fact as to Buckley's RFC. The VE considered Buckley's age, education, work history and RFC, and opined that Buckley could still do the work of a housekeeper as classified by the
The Court finds Buckley's contention that DOT listing 323.687-018 exceeds her RFC is immaterial. This listing, a housecleaner job described as heavy work — exerting 50-100 pounds of force frequently, 10-20 pounds constantly, is mentioned nowhere in the record in Buckley's case. The ALJ made no finding that Buckley's past work was heavy work; VE Smith specifically testified her past work was as a housekeeper, DOT number 323.687-014, light, unskilled work, and in answer to the ALJ's hypothetical the VE testified Buckley could still do that work, and the ALJ properly relied on that testimony in reaching the conclusion that Buckley is not disabled under the Act. [11, pp. 62, 334-335] The VE's testimony, based on a properly phrased hypothetical question, constitutes substantial evidence. Bowling v. Shalala, 36 F.3d 431, 436 (5th Cir. 1994). The Court affirms the ALJ's decision as it is supported by substantial evidence and in accord with relevant legal standards. A separate judgment will be entered.
SO ORDERED.