RENÉE MARIE BUMB, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court upon an appeal by Plaintiff Frances Jean Smith-Seright (the "Plaintiff") of the final determination of the Commissioner of Social Security (the "Commissioner") denying Plaintiff's application for social security disability benefits. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will
On December 30, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Title II application for disability insurance benefits and a Title XVI application for supplemental security income. In her application, Plaintiff alleges disability, beginning January 1, 2010, based on her severe obesity, asthma, depression, and bipolar disorder. Plaintiff also allegedly suffers from posttraumatic stress disorder ("PTSD"), learning disabilities, and has a history of substance abuse. Plaintiff's claim was initially denied on May 15, 2014, and again denied upon reconsideration on August 21, 2014. [Record of Proceedings ("R.P.") at 92-138]. On March 30, 2017, Plaintiff testified at a formal hearing before Administrative Law Judge Arthur Patane. At the hearing, Plaintiff was represented by an attorney.
On August 8, 2017, the ALJ issued a decision denying Plaintiff's claim for benefits, based on the ALJ's determination that "there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that the claimant can perform." [R.P. at 23]. The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review on February 6, 2018, rendering the ALJ's decision as final. [R.P. at 1-3]. Plaintiff now seeks this Court's review.
When reviewing a final decision of an ALJ with regard to disability benefits, a court must uphold the ALJ's factual decisions if they are supported by "substantial evidence."
In addition to the "substantial evidence" inquiry, the court must also determine whether the ALJ applied the correct legal standards.
The Social Security Act defines "disability" as the 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 twelve months." 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(A). The Act further states,
42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(B).
The Commissioner has promulgated a five-step, sequential analysis for evaluating a claimant's disability, as outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i-v). In
The Court recites only the facts that are necessary to its determination on appeal, which is narrow. Plaintiff is a 34 year-old female, but was 24 years old on the alleged disability onset date and 32 years old at the time of her hearing before the ALJ. Plaintiff attended some high school, but neither graduated nor earned a GED. Although Plaintiff worked for a few months as a "parent coach" for the Board of Education in May 2011, she has almost no work experience at all, let alone past relevant experience.
According to medical records, Plaintiff suffers from a variety of physical and mental impairments. Notably, medical records indicate that Plaintiff is severely obese and suffers from asthma, bipolar disorder, depression, PTSD, learning disabilities, and substance abuse. At a doctor's appointment on January 10, 2010, around the alleged onset date, Plaintiff was measured at 5'6" and weighed 364 pounds. [R.P. at 804]. On July 8, 2013, Plaintiff weighed 405 pounds. [
Plaintiff testified at the administrative hearing that she left high school when her son was born and was unable to complete her degree when she tried to return afterwards. Plaintiff states that she has struggled to find jobs or GED programs that will accept her, given her schedule for mental health treatment during the day at Wiley.
At the administrative hearing, Plaintiff described the ways her obesity impacts her daily life. Plaintiff testified that she has one specific chair in her house that will support her weight, as she has previously broken through chairs. Plaintiff has difficulty standing for more than 30 minutes at a time and often needs her son's assistance to complete routine tasks, such as cleaning the apartment, carrying heavy groceries, putting on socks, and lifting pots of water while cooking. Plaintiff states that she can shower on her own because her shower has a bar that she can grab onto when she climbs into the tub. Plaintiff testified that she tried to exercise at a gym to lose weight, but injured her knee and felt that it did not heal enough for her to resume exercising.
According to psychological evaluation performed by Dr. Kenneth Goldberg, Ph.D. on May 19, 2010, Plaintiff tests in the low-average range of intellectual functioning. [
In his decision, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff was not disabled, as defined in the Social Security Act, from her alleged onset date through the date of the ALJ's decision. The ALJ found that Plaintiff suffers from severe impairments, but held that she retained a Residual Functional Capacity ("RFC") to perform unskilled light work in jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy.
At Step One of the sequential analysis the ALJ determined that Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset date of January 1, 2010. [R.P. at 17]. At Step Two, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff's "severe" impairments were "obesity, asthma, depressive disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, learning disorder, and history of substance use disorder." [
At Step Three the ALJ determined that Plaintiff did not have an impairment that meets or is medically equivalent to the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1.
At Step Four, the ALJ determined that the Plaintiff:
[R.P. at 18]. In making this decision, the ALJ considered Plaintiff's "own reports and allegations," which the ALJ found to be "partially, though not entirely consistent with the medical evidence." [R.P. at 22]. Although the ALJ noted that Plaintiff's impairments were "well-documented," the ALJ concluded that "to the extent that she asserts that these conditions prevent her from performing any work on a sustained, consistent basis, her allegations are undermined by her indication to an examining source that staying home from work was merely a `preference.'" [
On appeal, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ's disability determination is not supported by substantial evidence because the ALJ failed to adequately account for the limitations posed by Plaintiff's severe obesity and her mental limitations in formulating her RFC. This Court agrees with Plaintiff.
With respect to RFC assessments, an ALJ is not required to include every alleged limitation in their hypotheticals and RFC assessments.
Plaintiff testified at the administrative hearing that her obesity causes significant limitations in her day-to-day life. However, the ALJ's opinion barely discusses Plaintiff's obesity. As noted by in Plaintiff's brief, Plaintiff suffers from severe obesity and would be considered "morbidly obese" at all times since the alleged onset date.
The ALJ mentions that he considered SSR 02-1P, which pertains to the limiting impact of obesity, but the ALJ does not apply the SSR or discuss those limitations in the opinion. In relevant part, SSR 02-1P mandates that an RFC assessment should include an evaluation of "the effect obesity has upon the individual's ability to perform routine movement and necessary physical activity within the work environment" and "must consider an individual's maximum remaining ability to do sustained work activities in an ordinary work setting on a regular and continuing basis." The Ruling also advises that the "combined effects of obesity with other impairments may be greater than might be expected without obesity." To the extent the ALJ may have considered these factors, such considerations are not articulated in the opinion in a manner that allows this Court to conduct a meaningful judicial review.
"[A]n ALJ must meaningfully consider the effect of a claimant's obesity, individually and in combination with her impairments, on her workplace function at step three and at every subsequent step."
The lack of any discussion about potential limitations posed by Plaintiff's obesity is not a harmless error, especially considering the ALJ's RFC determination. Notably, the definition of "light work" calls for "frequent lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to 10 pounds" and may require "a good deal of walking or standing." 20 CFR 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b). The ALJ also did not solicit testimony from a vocational expert as to whether Plaintiff's limitations would impact her ability to find regular employment. Absent a more thorough discussion of Plaintiff's physical limitations related to her obesity, as well as how it interacts with her asthma, depression, and other impairments, the Court cannot find that the ALJ's opinion is supported by substantial evidence.
This Court does not express an opinion as to whether Plaintiff's impairments meet a listing or render her disabled, as defined by the Act. However, the Court finds that the ALJ committed a reversible legal error in failing to adequately address Plaintiff's possible limitations related to her severe obesity in formulating her RFC. On remand, the ALJ must discuss Plaintiff's obesity under the framework set forth in SSR 02-1P and fully develop the record regarding Plaintiff's ability to perform light work.
For the reasons set forth above, the Court will
