STEVEN J. McAULIFFE, District Judge.
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3), Wade Lincourt moves to reverse or vacate the Acting Commissioner's decisions denying his applications for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits, Supplemental Security Income, and Child's Disability Benefits.
For the reasons discussed below, claimant's motion is denied, and the Acting Commissioner's motion is granted.
In the spring of 2010, claimant filed applications for Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB"), Supplemental Security Income ("SSI"), and Child's Disability Benefits ("CDB"), alleging a disability onset date of August 15, 2008, at which time he was 19 years old. Those applications were denied and claimant requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ").
In August of 2011, claimant appeared before an ALJ, who considered his applications de novo. Two weeks later, the ALJ issued her written decision, concluding that claimant was not disabled, as that term is defined in the Act. The Appeals Council denied claimant's request for review. But, in December of 2011, the ALJ notified claimant that she was reopening her decision so claimant's medical record might be more fully developed. Letters requesting updated medical records were sent to James DeJohn, M.D., and Salmon Falls Family Healthcare. Dr. DeJohn responded that claimant was no longer a patient at his practice and there were no new medical records to provide. Admin. Rec. at 393. Salmon Falls Family Healthcare produced medical records from an office visit in April, 2011 (though those records provided no support for claimant's assertion of disability).
In March of 2012, a different ALJ held a new hearing, at which claimant and his mother appeared and testified. Shortly thereafter, the ALJ issued two decisions: one finding that claimant was not disabled with respect to his SSI and DIB claims (Amin. Rec. at 429-41), and one finding that he was not disabled with respect to his CDB claim (Admin. Rec. at 16-27). The appeals council again denied claimant's request for review and the ALJ's adverse decisions became the final decisions of the Acting Commissioner, subject to judicial review. Subsequently, claimant filed a timely action in this court, asserting that the ALJ's decisions are not supported by substantial evidence. Claimant then filed a "Motion for Order Reversing Decision of the Commissioner" (document no. 11). In response, the Acting Commissioner filed a "Motion for an Order Affirming the Decision of the Commissioner" (document no. 12). Those motions are pending.
Pursuant to this court's Local Rule 9.1, the parties have submitted a statement of stipulated facts which, because it is part of the court's record (document no. 14), need not be recounted in this opinion. Those facts relevant to the disposition of this matter are discussed as appropriate.
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the court is empowered "to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing." Factual findings and credibility determinations made by the Commissioner are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence.
An individual seeking Social Security disability benefits is disabled under the Act if he or she is unable "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. § 423(d)(1)(A).
The Act places a heavy initial burden on the claimant to establish the existence of a disabling impairment.
In assessing a disability claim, the Commissioner considers both objective and subjective factors, including: (1) objective medical facts; (2) the claimant's subjective claims of pain and disability, as supported by the testimony of the claimant or other witnesses; and (3) the claimant's educational background, age, and work experience.
42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A).
With those principles in mind, the court reviews claimant's motion to reverse and the Acting Commissioner's motion to affirm her decision.
In concluding that claimant was not disabled within the meaning of the Act, the ALJ properly employed the mandatory five-step sequential evaluation process described in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 and 416.920.
Next, the ALJ concluded that claimant retained the residual functional capacity ("RFC") to perform "a full range of work at all exertional levels," subject only to the restriction that "social interaction should be no more than occasional and then only on brief, superficial matters" and "work duties should not require interaction with the general public."
Finally, the ALJ considered whether there were any jobs in the national economy that claimant might perform. Relying upon the testimony given by a vocational expert in claimant's earlier hearing, the ALJ concluded that, considering claimant's age, education, and residual functional capacity, "there are jobs in significant numbers in the national economy that claimant can perform."
Claimant challenges the ALJ's decision on grounds that it is not supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, he says the hypothetical question posed to the vocational expert fails to account for all of his non-exertional limitations. That hypothetical posited that claimant:
Admin. Rec. at 421. In response, the vocational expert opined that an individual with those limitations could work in "a large number of occupations," including courier, office helper, cleaner/janitor, and hand packer — jobs that, when combined, represent approximately 1.3 million jobs in the national economy. The vocational expert testified that those jobs are "representative examples of a very large base of jobs" that a person with the limitations posed in the hypothetical could successfully perform.
But, says claimant, that hypothetical fails to address his difficulty in thinking on his feet and dealing with unfamiliar or rapidly changing situations, his limited ability to interact appropriately with others, his deficits in long-term focus, and his inability to manage funds for his own benefit.
But, the various isolated opinions offered by Dr. Stenslie and relied upon by claimant do not support a finding of disability, nor do they undermine the validity of the hypothetical question posed to the vocational expert. In fact, in a summary of his findings, Dr. Stenslie concluded that:
Psychological Evaluation, Admin. Rec. at 297.
Similarly, the isolated opinions of Michael Schneider, Psy.D., identified by claimant do not undermine the ALJ's adverse disability determinations or the hypothetical question that was posed to the vocational expert. While claimant points to the fact that Dr. Schneider noted that he suffers from "moderately limited" abilities in the realms of "social interaction" and "adaptation," Dr. Schneider concluded that claimant does not have any disabling impairments:
Admin. Rec. at 356.
Given the medical evidence of record, it is plain that the ALJ's hypothetical question to the vocational expert and, indeed, the ALJ's adverse disability decision itself, are supported by substantial evidence. In both crafting the hypothetical question and considering claimant's assertions of disability, the ALJ properly (and supportably) drew from the opinions of Dr. Schneider (Admin. Rec. at 299-315), Dr. Stenslie (
This court's review of the ALJ's decision is both limited and deferential. The court is not empowered to consider claimant's application de novo, nor may it undertake an independent assessment of whether he is disabled under the Act. Rather, the court's inquiry is "limited to determining whether the ALJ deployed the proper legal standards and found facts upon the proper quantum of evidence."
Here, the ALJ's adverse disability decision is supported by substantial evidence. Consequently, while there is certainly substantial evidence in the record demonstrating that claimant suffers from ADHD and has been diagnosed with a pervasive developmental disorder, the existence of such evidence is not sufficient to undermine the ALJ's decision that those impairments do not render claimant "disabled" within the meaning of the Social Security Act.
Having carefully reviewed the administrative record (including the testimony of the vocational expert) and the arguments advanced by both the Acting Commissioner and claimant, the court concludes that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ's determination that claimant was not disabled at any time prior to reaching the age of 22, nor was he disabled prior to the date of the ALJ's decision. Both the hypothetical question presented to the vocational expert, and the ALJ's adverse disability decision are well-reasoned and well-supported by substantial documentary evidence.
For the foregoing reasons, as well as those set forth in the Acting Commissioner's memorandum, claimant's motion to reverse the decision of the Commissioner (document no. 11) is denied, and the Acting Commissioner's motion to affirm her decision (document no. 12) is granted. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in accordance with this order and close the case.