PAMELA MEADE SARGENT, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff, Lisa M. Gilley, ("Gilley"), filed this action challenging the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, ("Commissioner"), determining that she was not eligible for supplemental security income, ("SSI"), under the Social Security Act, as amended, ("Act"), 42 U.S.C.A. § 1381 et seq. (West 2012). Jurisdiction of this court is pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3). This case is before the undersigned magistrate judge upon transfer by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1).
The court's review in this case is limited to determining if the factual findings of the Commissioner are supported by substantial evidence and were reached through application of the correct legal standards. See Coffman v. Bowen, 829 F.2d 514, 517 (4
The record shows that Gilley protectively filed her application
By decision dated August 29, 2012, the ALJ denied Gilley's claim. (R. at 22-34.) The ALJ found that Gilley had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since October 29, 2009, the date of her application. (R. at 24.) The ALJ determined that the medical evidence established that Gilley suffered from severe impairments, including obesity, hypertension, degenerative joint disease, sprains and strains, hepatitis C, major depressive disorder, borderline personality disorder, bipolar disorder and anxiety-related disorder, but he found that Gilley did not have an impairment or combination of impairments listed at or medically equal to one listed at 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. (R. at 24-26.) The ALJ found that Gilley had the residual functional capacity to perform light work
After the ALJ issued his decision, Gilley pursued her administrative appeals, but the Appeals Council denied her request for review. (R. at 6-10, 17.) Gilley then filed this action seeking review of the ALJ's unfavorable decision, which now stands as the Commissioner's final decision. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.1481 (2014). The case is before this court on Gilley's motion for summary judgment filed July 1, 2014, and the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment filed July 29, 2014. Neither party has requested oral argument.
The Commissioner uses a five-step process in evaluating SSI claims. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920 (2014); see also Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U.S. 458, 460-62 (1983); Hall v. Harris, 658 F.2d 260, 264-65 (4
Under this analysis, a claimant has the initial burden of showing that she is unable to return to her past relevant work because of her impairments. Once the claimant establishes a prima facie case of disability, the burden shifts to the Commissioner. To satisfy this burden, the Commissioner must then establish that the claimant has the residual functional capacity, considering the claimant's age, education, work experience and impairments, to perform alternative jobs that exist in the national economy. See 42 U.S.C.A. § 1382c(a)(3)(A)-(B) (West 2003 & Supp. 2014); McLain v. Schweiker, 715 F.2d 866, 868-69 (4
Gilley argues that the ALJ improperly determined her residual functional capacity. (Plaintiff's Memorandum In Support Of Her Motion For Summary Judgment, ("Plaintiff's Brief"), at 6-8.) Gilley also argues that the ALJ erred by failing to give full consideration to the findings of Robert L. Spangler, Ph.D., on the severity of Gilley's mental impairments. (Plaintiff's Brief at 4-6.)
As stated above, the court's function in this case is limited to determining whether substantial evidence exists in the record to support the ALJ's findings. This court must not weigh the evidence, as this court lacks authority to substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner, provided her decision is supported by substantial evidence. See Hays, 907 F.2d at 1456. In determining whether substantial evidence supports the Commissioner's decision, the court also must consider whether the ALJ analyzed all of the relevant evidence and whether the ALJ sufficiently explained his findings and his rationale in crediting evidence. See Sterling Smokeless Coal Co. v. Akers, 131 F.3d 438, 439-40 (4
It is the ALJ's responsibility to weigh the evidence, including the medical evidence, in order to resolve any conflicts which might appear therein. See Hays, 907 F.2d at 1456; Taylor v. Weinberger, 528 F.2d 1153, 1156 (4
Based on my review of the record, I agree that the ALJ's finding as to Gilley's residual functional capacity is not supported by substantial evidence. I also find that substantial evidence does not support the ALJ's finding that Gilley did not suffer from a severe impairment to her right knee. The ALJ found that Gilley suffered from the severe impairments of obesity, hypertension, degenerative joint disease, sprains and strains, hepatitis C, major depressive disorder, borderline personality disorder, bipolar disorder and anxiety-related disorder. (R. at 24.) Despite Gilley's assertion that she was disabled, in part, due to right knee pain, the ALJ did not find that she suffered from a severe knee impairment. The uncontradicted medical evidence, however, shows that Gilley's problems with her right knee affected her work-related abilities.
The medical evidence contained in the record shows that Gilley sought medical treatment from Dr. Lawrence Wallace, M.D., a orthopedic physician, as early as 2004 for a more than 10-year history of right knee pain. (R. at 262-65.) Dr. Wallace's examination of Gilley's right knee revealed fairly benign findings with no evidence, at that time, of ligamentous instability. (R. at 262.) An MRI of Gilley's right knee performed on January 29, 2004, showed an old chondral injury along the medial femoral condyle with a punctate area of full-thickness cartilage loss and underlying subchondral edema and cyst formation. (R. at 259-60, 264.) Dr. Wallace recommended unspecified activity modification, weight reduction and prescribed anti-inflammatory and pain medication. (R. at 264.) Dr. Wallace later referred Gilley to pain management. (R. at 265.)
Dr. Kevin Blackwell, D.O., performed a consultative examination of Gilley at the state agency's request on November 20, 2010. (R. at 818-22.) Gilley told Dr. Blackwell that she had experienced problems with her right knee for more than 20 years. (R. at 818.) Gilley complained that her knee felt like it wanted to give out and would lock on occasion. (R. at 818.) Dr. Blackwell's examination revealed tenderness to the right knee with palpation with "Drawer's testing ... somewhat lax." (R. at 820.) Drawer's testing is performed to test the integrity of the cruciate ligaments of the knee. See DORLAND'S ILLUSTRATED MEDICAL DICTIONARY, ("Dorland's"), 1673 (28
The Social Security regulations define a "nonsevere" impairment as an impairment or combination of impairments that does not significantly limit a claimant's ability to do basic work activities. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.921(a) (2014). Basic work activities include walking, standing, sitting, lifting, pushing, pulling, reaching, carrying, handling, seeing, hearing, speaking, understanding, carrying out and remembering simple job instructions, use of judgment, responding appropriately to supervision, co-workers and usual work situations and dealing with changes in a routine work setting. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.921(b) (2014). The Fourth Circuit held in Evans v. Heckler, that "`"[a]n impairment can be considered as `not severe' only if it is a slight abnormality which has such a minimal effect on the individual that it would not be expected to interfere with the individual's ability to work, irrespective of age, education, or work experience."'" 734 F.2d 1012, 1014 (4
I also find that substantial evidence does not support the ALJ's decision as to Gilley's physical residual functional capacity. In particular, I find that substantial evidence does not support the ALJ's decision to give little weight to the opinion of Dr. Blackwell as to Gilley's physical residual functional capacity. The ALJ found that Gilley had the physical residual functional capacity to perform light work that did not require climbing ladders, ropes or scaffolds or concentrated exposure to hazards or more than occasional kneeling and crawling. (R. at 26-32.) In making this finding, the ALJ stated that he was giving "little weight" to the opinion of Dr. Blackwell regarding Gilley's residual functional capacity because it was "not supported by medical evidence of record or objective findings of his exam." (R. at 30.) This statement simply is not accurate based on the medical evidence listed above, including the drawer's test performed by Dr. Blackwell, which showed some laxity in Gilley's right knee ligaments.
Based on the above-stated reasons, I find that substantial evidence does not support the ALJ's decision denying benefits. I will deny both motions for summary judgment, vacate the decision denying benefits and remand Gilley's claim to the Commissioner for further development. An appropriate order and judgment will be entered.