ERIN L. SETSER, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff, Kathy Ann Farmer, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of a decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (Commissioner) denying her claim for supplemental security income (SSI) benefits under the provisions of Title XVI of the Social Security Act (Act). In this judicial review, the Court must determine whether there is substantial evidence in the administrative record to support the Commissioner's decision.
Plaintiff protectively filed her current application for SSI on October 8, 2008, alleging an inability to work due to back problems, mental problems, bipolar disorder, and anxiety. (Tr. 94, 120). An administrative hearing was held on January 6, 2010, at which Plaintiff appeared with counsel and testified. (Tr. 26-40).
By written decision dated April 22, 2010, the ALJ found that during the relevant time period, Plaintiff had an impairment or combination of impairments that were severe. (Tr. 20). Specifically, the ALJ found Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: an affective disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), an anxiety disorder, and a substance abuse disorder. However, after reviewing all of the evidence presented, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff's impairments did not meet or equal the level of severity of any impairment listed in the Listing of Impairments found in Appendix I, Subpart P, Regulation No. 4. (Tr. 21). The ALJ found Plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to:
(Tr. 21). With the help of a vocational expert, the ALJ determined Plaintiff could perform work as a maid/house cleaner, and a packer. (Tr. 25).
Plaintiff then requested a review of the hearing decision by the Appeals Council, which after reviewing additional evidence submitted, denied that request on March 9, 2012. (Tr. 1-4). Subsequently, Plaintiff filed this action. (Doc. 1). This case is before the undersigned pursuant to the consent of the parties. (Doc. 7). Both parties have filed appeal briefs, and the case is now ready for decision. (Docs. 10, 11).
The Court has reviewed the entire transcript. The complete set of facts and arguments are presented in the parties' briefs, and are repeated here only to the extent necessary.
This Court's role is to determine whether the Commissioner's findings are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.
It is well-established that a claimant for Social Security disability benefits has the burden of proving her disability by establishing a physical or mental disability that has lasted at least one year and that prevents her from engaging in any substantial gainful activity.
The Commissioner's regulations require her to apply a five-step sequential evaluation process to each claim for disability benefits: (1) whether the claimant has engaged in substantial gainful activity since filing her claim; (2) whether the claimant has a severe physical and/or mental impairment or combination of impairments; (3) whether the impairment(s) meet or equal an impairment in the listings; (4) whether the impairment(s) prevent the claimant from doing past relevant work; and, (5) whether the claimant is able to perform other work in the national economy given her age, education, and experience.
Plaintiff argues the following issues in this appeal: 1) the ALJ erred in determining Plaintiff did not have a severe physical impairment; 2) the ALJ erred by affording greater weight to non-examining physicians rather than examining physicians without further elaboration; and 3) the ALJ erred in rejecting Plaintiff's subjective complaints.
At Step Two of the sequential analysis, the ALJ is required to determine whether a claimant's impairments are severe.
While the ALJ found that Plaintiff's alleged back impairment was non-severe, the ALJ clearly considered all of Plaintiff's impairments, including the impairments that were found to be non-severe.
In finding that Plaintiff's alleged back impairment was non-severe, the ALJ noted that the medical evidence failed to show that Plaintiff sought ongoing and consistent treatment for back pain. The ALJ also noted that in January of 2009, Plaintiff underwent a general physical examination and was found to have full range of motion in her joints and extremities. (Tr. 224-227). The ALJ noted that the consultative examiner opined that objectively Plaintiff had only mild limitations. Thus, the ALJ's finding that Plaintiff's alleged back pain was not a "severe" impairment does not constitute reversible error.
RFC is the most a person can do despite that person's limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). It is assessed using all relevant evidence in the record.
"The [social security] regulations provide that a treating physician's opinion . . . will be granted `controlling weight,' provided the opinion is `well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.'"
The Court finds, based upon the well-stated reasons outlined in the Defendant's brief, that Plaintiff's argument is without merit, and there was sufficient evidence for the ALJ to make an informed decision. The Court notes that in determining Plaintiff's RFC, the ALJ specifically discussed Plaintiff's subjective complaints, and her medical records when he determined Plaintiff's RFC. The ALJ also discussed the medical opinions of examining and non-examining medical professionals, including Dr. William McGowan, Dr. Brian Mooney, and Dr. Cara R. Hartfield, as well as the "other source" medical opinion of Ms. Kathleen Housley, and set forth the reasons for the weight given to the opinions. With regard to Plaintiff's mental impairments, the ALJ noted that Dr. Hartfield opined after her one-time evaluation in December of 2008, that Plaintiff had marked limitations with attention, concentration and persistence. (Tr. 190-200). However, the ALJ gave more weight to the 2008-2009 treatment notes of Dr. Mooney, one of Plaintiff's treating physicians, who noted that Plaintiff's memory, attention, concentration and fund of knowledge were normal.
The ALJ was required to consider all the evidence relating to Plaintiff's subjective complaints including evidence presented by third parties that relates to: (1) Plaintiff's daily activities; (2) the duration, frequency, and intensity of her pain; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of her medication; and (5) functional restrictions.
After reviewing the administrative record, and the Defendant's well-stated reasons set forth in her brief, it is clear that the ALJ properly considered and evaluated Plaintiff's subjective complaints, including the Polaski factors. A review of the record revealed that in November of 2008, Plaintiff reported that she was able to help care for her children; do household chores; drive; prepare simple meals; and shop for groceries. (Tr. 136-143). The record further revealed that Plaintiff would do some house cleaning for others and sell aluminum cans to make a little money. (Tr. 241).
The Court would also note that while Plaintiff alleged an inability to seek treatment due to a lack of finances, the record is void of any indication that Plaintiff had been denied treatment due to the lack of funds.
Based on the record as a whole, the Court finds there is substantial evidence to support the ALJ's credibility findings.
After thoroughly reviewing the hearing transcript along with the entire evidence of record, the Court finds that the hypothetical the ALJ posed to the vocational expert fully set forth the impairments which the ALJ accepted as true and which were supported by the record as a whole.
Accordingly, having carefully reviewed the record, the undersigned finds substantial evidence supporting the ALJ's decision denying the Plaintiff benefits, and thus the decision should be affirmed. The undersigned further finds that the Plaintiff's Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice.