KIMBERLY E. WEST, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Chris Allen Dodd (the "Claimant") requests judicial review of the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the "Commissioner") denying Claimant's application for disability benefits under the Social Security Act. Claimant appeals the decision of the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") and asserts that the Commissioner erred because the ALJ incorrectly determined that Claimant was not disabled. For the reasons discussed below, it is the finding of this Court that the Commissioner's decision should be and is REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.
Disability under the Social Security Act is defined as the "inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment. . ." 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). A claimant is disabled under the Social Security Act "only if his physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy. . ." 42 U.S.C. §423(d)(2)(A). Social Security regulations implement a five-step sequential process to evaluate a disability claim. See, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920.
Judicial review of the Commissioner's determination is limited in scope by 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). This Court's review is limited to two inquiries: first, whether the decision was supported by substantial evidence; and, second, whether the correct legal standards were applied.
Claimant was born on October 2, 1962 and was 49 years old at the time of the ALJ's decision. Claimant completed his high school education. Claimant has worked in the past as an installer of underground electric and as a dump truck driver. Claimant alleges an inability to work beginning August 12, 2009 due to limitations resulting from back and leg pain, left hand/wrist problems from a work-related injury.
On March 13, 2010, Claimant protectively filed for disability insurance benefits under Title II (42 U.S.C. § 401, et seq.) of the Social Security Act. Claimant's application was denied initially and upon reconsideration. On February 27, 2012, an administrative hearing was held before Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") Charles Headrick in Tulsa, Oklahoma. By decision dated March 30, 2012, the ALJ denied Claimant's request for benefits. The Appeals Council denied review of the ALJ's decision on May 31, 2013. As a result, the decision of the ALJ represents the Commissioner's final decision for purposes of further appeal. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.981, 416.1481.
The ALJ made his decision at step five of the sequential evaluation. He determined that while Claimant suffered from severe impairments, he did not meet a listing and retained the residual functional capacity ("RFC") to perform a full range of light work.
Claimant asserts the ALJ committed error in (1) failing to find Claimant's injuries to his left hand and arm to be a severe impairment; (2) reaching an RFC which did not include all of Claimant's limitations; and (3) performing an improper credibility analysis.
In his decision, the ALJ found Claimant suffered from the severe impairments of remote fracture of the hips and low back pain. (Tr. 16). The ALJ determined Claimant retained the RFC to perform a full range of light work.
After consultation with a vocational expert, the ALJ found Claimant could perform the representative jobs of a small products assembler and fast food worker, which the vocational expert testified existed in sufficient numbers nationally and regionally. (Tr. 21). The ALJ, therefore, concluded Claimant was not disabled.
Claimant contends the ALJ failed to consider his left hand and arm injuries as a severe impairment. Since the ALJ determined Claimant suffered from other severe impairments, the sole question presented by Claimant's arguments is whether the inclusion of Claimant's left extremity problems further limited his ability to engage in basic work activities.
On January 7, 2009, Claimant underwent a procedure to the left fifth finger proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty utilizing small bone innovations proximal interphalangeal joint replacement prosthesis and antibiotic impregnated cement. Claimant suffered from severe traumatic osteoarthritis at the proximal interphalangeal joint in the left fifth finger. The procedure was performed by Dr. Christopher Deloache. (Tr. 221). In March of 2009, Claimant still experienced pain and limited functional use of the left hand. He continued with therapy. (Tr. 238). As late as February of 2012, Claimant was noted to have weakness in the hand which caused him to drop objects and he felt tightness in his fingers. He also was developing a mass in his hand that was worsening. (Tr. 570). Dr. Brian Chalkin suspected Claimant was developing carpal tunnel syndrome. (Tr. 571).
At step two, Claimant bears the burden of showing the existence of an impairment or combination of impairments which "significantly limits [his] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities." 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). An impairment which warrants disability benefits is one that "results from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities which are demonstrable by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques." 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(1)(D). The severity determination for an alleged impairment is based on medical evidence alone and "does not include consideration of such factors as age, education, and work experience."
The burden of showing a severe impairment is "de minimis," yet the presence of a medical condition alone is not sufficient at step two.
A claimant's testimony alone is insufficient to establish a severe impairment. The requirements clearly provide:
The functional limitations must be marked and severe that can be expected to result in death or to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months. 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(1)(C)(i); 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(a)(1).
The effect of Claimant's hand problems is readily apparent through the vocational expert's testimony. He stated at the hearing that if Claimant was limited to no more than occasional use of the non-dominant left hand and if it affecting his ability to handle, grasp, and grab, it would eliminate the jobs he identified as representative of those available to Claimant. (Tr. 50). Claimant sustained his burden of establishing a severe impairment in his left hand which would affect his ability to engage in basic work activities as identified by the vocational expert. On remand, the ALJ shall consider this additional impairment and incorporate it into his RFC analysis.
Claimant also contends the ALJ should have considered his back problems and mental impairments in his RFC assessment. Claimant indicates that he was diagnosed with mental impairments but references little in the way of functional limitations brought about by this condition. The focus of a disability determination is on the functional consequences of a condition, not the mere diagnosis. See e.g.
With regard to his back condition, Claimant testified concerning the limitations the condition places upon his ability to stand, walk, and sit. (Tr. 36-38). The analysis of this condition and any associated limitation necessarily turns upon the rejection by the ALJ of Claimant's credibility.
The ALJ's sole evaluation of Claimant's credibility turns upon the oft-used and legally insupportable statement that Claimant's testimony is not credible "to the extent [his statements] are inconsistent with the above residual functional capacity assessment." (Tr. 18). Little additional analysis is provided.
It is well-established that "findings as to credibility should be closely and affirmatively linked to substantial evidence and not just a conclusion in the guise of findings."
Factors to be considered in assessing a claimant's credibility include (1) the individual's daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the individual's pain or other symptoms; (3) factors that precipitate and aggravate the symptoms; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication the individual takes or has taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms; (5) treatment, other than medication, the individual receives or has received for relief of pain or other symptoms; (6) any measures other than treatment the individual uses or has used to relieve pain or other symptoms (e.g., lying flat on his or her back, standing for 15 to 20 minutes every hour, or sleeping on a board); and (7) any other factors concerning the individual's functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. Soc. Sec. R. 96-7p; 1996 WL 374186, 3.
An ALJ cannot satisfy his obligation to gauge a claimant's credibility by merely making conclusory findings and must give reasons for the determination based upon specific evidence.
The ALJ's credibility analysis is scant and unsupported. On remand, the ALJ shall reassess Claimant's credibility employing the analysis suggested in Soc. Sec. R. 96-7p. Upon doing so, the ALJ shall also re-evaluate Claimant's back condition at step five and determine whether further functional restrictions should be included in his RFC.
The decision of the Commissioner is not supported by substantial evidence and the correct legal standards were not applied. Therefore, this Court finds, in accordance with the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the ruling of the Commissioner of Social Security Administration should be and is
IT IS SO ORDERED.
