ERIN L. SETSER, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff, Tracie, R. Spann, 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 claims for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits (DIB) under the provisions of Title II 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 DIB on September 21, 2011, alleging an inability to work since August 31, 2008, due to depression, anxiety, panic attacks, possible fibromyalgia, valley fever, and possible rheumatoid arthritis. (Tr. 112, 165). An administrative hearing was held on February 6, 2013, at which Plaintiff appeared with counsel and testified. (Tr. 31-56).
By written decision dated March 20, 2013, the ALJ found that during the relevant time period, Plaintiff had an impairment or combination of impairments that were severe. (Tr. 13). Specifically, the ALJ found Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: major depression, social phobia, generalized anxiety disorder, fibromyalgia, and allergies/frequent upper respiratory infections. 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. 13). The ALJ found Plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to:
(Tr. 14). With the help of a vocational expert, the ALJ determined Plaintiff could perform work as a maid/housekeeping cleaner, a merchandise price marker, and a routing clerk/package mail sorter. (Tr. 23).
Plaintiff then requested a review of the hearing decision by the Appeals Council, which denied that request on February 10, 2014. (Tr. 1-6). 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. (Doc. 11; Doc. 13).
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 on appeal: 1) the ALJ erred in considering Plaintiff's impairments in combination; 2) the ALJ erred in his analysis and credibility findings in regard to Plaintiff's subjective complaints of pain; and 3) the ALJ erred in finding that Plaintiff retained the RFC to perform a limited range of light work.
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in failing to consider all of the claimant's impairments in combination.
The ALJ stated that in determining Plaintiff's RFC, he considered "all of the claimant's impairments, including impairments that are not severe." (Tr. 12). The ALJ further found that the Plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled one of the listed impairments. (Tr. 13). Such language demonstrates the ALJ considered the combined effect of Plaintiff's impairments.
We now address the ALJ's assessment of Plaintiff's subjective complaints. 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 Plaintiff's impairments required conservative treatment and that she improved with treatment. The Court notes that conservative treatment is inconsistent with disabling pain.
With regard to Plaintiff's activity, the record revealed that in January of 2011, and January of 2012, Plaintiff reported that she was able to take care of activities of daily living without assistance. (Tr. 480, 613). The record further revealed that during the relevant time period, Plaintiff was able to go on a trip to the Gulf Coast where she walked on the beach, climbed to the top of a lighthouse, and went shopping; took her granddaughter shopping and out to dinner; drove her daughter to the daughter's doctor appointments in Tulsa, Oklahoma; sang songs at her husband's karaoke business; helped care for her daughter while her daughter recovered from a surgical procedure; went on a motorcycle ride with her husband; visited her granddaughter in Mississippi for her birthday; went to pawn shops looking for items stolen from her mother's home; drove herself to therapy; shopped for party decorations for her friend's anniversary party; sang two songs at her friend's anniversary party; went to a family reunion where she met relatives for the first time; went on a couple of trips with her mother; and went out to dinner.
A review of the record reveals that Plaintiff was diagnosed and treated for a respiratory impairment. While Plaintiff's treating physician recommended that she stop smoking, the record revealed that Plaintiff smoked throughout the relevant time period.
Therefore, although it is clear that Plaintiff suffers with some degree of limitation, she has not established that she was unable to engage in any gainful activity during the time period in question. Accordingly, the Court concludes that substantial evidence supports the ALJ's conclusion that Plaintiff's subjective complaints were not totally credible.
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 ALJ considered the medical assessments of examining and non-examining agency medical consultants, Plaintiff's subjective complaints, and her medical records when he determined Plaintiff could perform light work with limitations. The ALJ also discussed the medical opinions of examining and non-examining medical professionals, as well as "other source" medical opinions completed by Ms. Kateri Killman, LCSW, and set forth the reasons for the weight given to the opinions.
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.