JOHN E. McDERMOTT, Magistrate Judge.
On September 3, 2013, John B. Sanford ("Plaintiff" or "Claimant") filed a complaint seeking review of the final decision by the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") denying Plaintiff's application for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits. The Commissioner filed an Answer on December 5, 2013. On April 9, 2014, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation ("JS"). The matter is now ready for decision.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), both parties consented to proceed before this Magistrate Judge. After reviewing the pleadings, transcripts, and administrative record ("AR"), the Court concludes that the Commissioner's decision must be reversed and this case remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this Memorandum Opinion and Order and with law.
Plaintiff is a 37-year-old male who applied for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits on June 3, 2010, alleging disability beginning March 11, 2009. (AR 23, 136.) The ALJ determined that Plaintiff has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since March 11, 2009, the alleged onset date. (AR 25.)
Plaintiff's claim was denied initially on October 28, 2010, and on reconsideration on March 4, 2011. (AR 23.) Plaintiff filed a timely request for hearing, which was held before Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") Joseph P. Lisiecki, III on October 27, 2011, in Orange, California. (AR 23.) Claimant appeared and testified at the hearing and was represented by counsel. (AR 23.) Medical expert ("ME") Dr. Steven B. Gerber and vocational expert ("VE") Kelly Winn-Boaitey also appeared and testified at the hearing. (AR 23.)
The ALJ issued an unfavorable decision on November 18, 2011. (AR 23-31.) The Appeals Council denied review on July 2, 2013. (AR 1-3.)
As reflected in the Joint Stipulation, Plaintiff raises the following disputed issues as grounds for reversal and remand:
Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), this Court reviews the ALJ's decision to determine whether the ALJ's findings are supported by substantial evidence and free of legal error.
Substantial evidence means "`more than a mere scintilla,' but less than a preponderance."
This Court must review the record as a whole and consider adverse as well as supporting evidence.
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 . . . can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months." 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A). The Commissioner has established a five-step sequential process to determine whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920.
The first step is to determine whether the claimant is presently engaging in substantial gainful activity.
Before making the step four determination, the ALJ first must determine the claimant's residual functional capacity ("RFC"). 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(e). The RFC is "the most [one] can still do despite [his or her] limitations" and represents an assessment "based on all the relevant evidence." 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1). The RFC must consider all of the claimant's impairments, including those that are not severe. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(e), 416.945(a)(2); Social Security Ruling ("SSR") 96-8p.
If the claimant cannot perform his or her past relevant work or has no past relevant work, the ALJ proceeds to the fifth step and must determine whether the impairment prevents the claimant from performing any other substantial gainful activity.
In this case, the ALJ determined at step one of the sequential process that Plaintiff has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since March 11, 2009, the alleged onset date. (AR 25.)
At step two, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff has the following medically determinable severe impairments: Crohn's colitis and bilateral avascular necrosis (20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c)). (AR 25.)
At step three, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of one of the listed impairments. (AR 26.)
The ALJ then found that Plaintiff has the RFC to perform sedentary work as defined in C.F.R. § 404.1567(a) with the following limitations:
(AR 26-29.) In determining this RFC, the ALJ made an adverse credibility determination. (AR 29.)
At step four, the ALJ found that Plaintiff is unable to perform his past relevant work as a construction equipment mechanic. (AR 29.) The ALJ, however, also found that considering Claimant's age, education, work experience and RFC, there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that Claimant can perform, including the sedentary unskilled jobs of telephone information clerk and charge account clerk. (AR 30, 59-60.)
Consequently, the ALJ found that Claimant was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. (AR 30.)
The ALJ decision must be reversed. The ALJ's RFC is not supported by substantial evidence, and the ALJ failed to develop the record fully. The ALJ's nondisability determination is not supported by substantial evidence nor free of legal error.
Although the ALJ's findings generally are supported by substantial evidence, there is an error in the opinion that requires reversal. Plaintiff John B. Sanford has the medically severe impairments of Crohn's colitis and bilateral avascular necrosis. (AR 25.) In March of 2009, he was diagnosed with Crohn's colitis and underwent a colostomy to remove his colon, and now must wear a colostomy bag. (AR 27, 378-379.) Claimant's colitis stabilized following the surgery. (AR 27.) His principal complaint is that he has to make frequent trips to the restroom to change or evacuate his colostomy bag. (AR 27.) He testified at the hearing that he would need to take five to seven bathroom breaks a day of ten minutes each. (AR 48.) The VE testified that there is no work that Plaintiff could perform with such a limitation. (AR 63.)
The ALJ's RFC does not contain any limitation regarding the time lost during each workday due to the number of times Plaintiff has to change his colostomy bag. The ALJ relied on the medical expert's testimony that "usually" the use of a colostomy bag does not create any additional functional limitations. (AR 43.) This statement occurred before Plaintiff's testimony about the need for five to seven bathroom breaks a day and does not appear to have considered it. The medical expert's testimony is inconclusive and insufficient to reject the limitation asserted by Plaintiff. The record on Plaintiff's asserted limitation is simply not developed adequately. Thus, the ALJ's decision must be reversed and remanded for additional proceedings.
The ALJ's RFC is not a medical determination but an administrative finding or legal decision reserved to the Commissioner based on consideration of all the relevant evidence, including medical evidence, lay witnesses, and subjective symptoms.
In evaluating medical opinions, the case law and regulations distinguish among the opinions of three types of physicians: (1) those who treat the claimant (treating physicians); (2) those who examine but do not treat the claimant (examining physicians); and (3) those who neither examine nor treat the claimant (non-examining, or consulting, physicians).
Where a treating doctor's opinion is not contradicted by another doctor, it may be rejected only for "clear and convincing" reasons.
During his treatment for colitis, Mr. Sanford was placed on a steroid treatment regimen which caused avascular necrosis of the hips, bilaterally. (AR 28.) An MRI of the pelvis revealed mild left hip joint effusion, sclerosis in the left femoral head with an area of collapse and the presence of edema in the left femoral head. (AR 28.) X-rays did not reveal any fractures or dislocations. (AR 28.) An orthopedic consulting examiner, Dr. Anh Tat Hoang, found moderate tenderness in his hip joint and limited Claimant to a light exertional RFC, sitting for six hours and standing/walking four hours in an eight hour workday. (AR 28, 456-459.) State agency reviewing physicians, however, assessed a sedentary RFC with occasional on all posturals and no heights, hazards, ladders or scaffolding, as did Dr. Gerber. (AR 42-43.) The ALJ adopted the latter RFC. (AR 26.)
Claimant appeared for his exam with Dr. Hoang on two crutches for ambulation (AR 28, 457) and Dr. Hoang's report states, "A cane is medically necessary for ambulation." (AR 459.) Two State agency physicians opined Plaintiff needed a cane for "prolonged ambulation." (AR 461, 498.) Plaintiff asserts error because the ALJ's RFC and hypothetical to the VE contain no limitation requiring a cane for ambulation. Plaintiff's contention lacks merit.
The ALJ found that during the hearing the Claimant stated that, although he does use crutches occasionally, he generally does not need or use ambulatory devices. (AR 28.) The ALJ found Claimant was able to walk with only a slight limp favoring his left extremity. (AR 28, 459.) More specifically, Plaintiff stated the following at the hearing:
(AR 48-49.) (Emphasis added.) Based on Plaintiff's own testimony, the ALJ's decision to reject physician RFC assessments requiring a cane, and not include such a limitation in his RFC or in his hypothetical to the VE, was reasonable. The ALJ rejected Plaintiff's assertion that he needs a cane based on his inconsistent statements at the hearing.
Plaintiff disputes the ALJ's interpretation of the evidence but it is the ALJ who has the responsibility for resolving conflicts in the evidence.
Plaintiff also contends that the ALJ erred in not including in his RFC the time lost at work because of frequent breaks to change or evacuate his colostomy bag. The Court agrees that the ALJ's RFC is not supported by substantial evidence to justify omission of this limitation and that the ALJ failed to develop the record adequately.
The ALJ acknowledged Plaintiff's contention that he must make frequent trips to the restroom because of his colostomy bag. (AR 27.) At the hearing, Claimant was asked why he cannot work and responded as follows:
(AR 48.)
Plaintiff's attorney then asked the VE whether there would be any work Plaintiff could perform if he needed a job that would require restroom breaks "no less than five times a day, and no more than seven, with ten minutes at each break." (AR 63.) The VE's response was, "There wouldn't be any work." (AR 63.) The VE explained that Claimant would be "away from their workstation for anywhere from a half-hour to an hour more than regular breaks." (AR 63.)
The ALJ, however, assessed no limitation in his RFC for restroom breaks to empty his colostomy bag (AR 26) and the ALJ's hypothetical question to the VE contained no limitation in the RFC for unscheduled bathroom breaks. (AR 58-59.) The ALJ relied exclusively on the opinion of Dr. Gerber, the medical expert, who opined that the use of a colostomy bag "
Dr. Gerber's testimony, as it stands, is insufficient to overcome the combined testimony of Plaintiff that he would require five to seven bathroom breaks a day of ten minutes each and the VE's testimony that such a limitation would preclude all work. Dr. Gerber's statement was a generalization that use of a colostomy bag "usually" does not create any additional functional limitations. Dr. Gerber made that comment and presented his RFC before Plaintiff gave his testimony about the number of bathroom breaks needed and before the VE opined there would be no work for the number of breaks Plaintiff claimed he would need. Plaintiff contends that Dr. Gerber never even heard either Plaintiff's testimony or the VE's testimony, as Dr. Gerber testified by phone and disconnected after his testimony, but Plaintiff offers no citation to the record to support this assertion and the Court finds nothing in the record to verify the assertion. Nonetheless, the Court is not satisfied that Dr. Gerber considered how the number of bathroom breaks
Both the ALJ and the Commissioner mistakenly rely on the medical evidence for their determination of nondisability. They note that no treating physician provided a medical source statement indicating disability (AR 27) and that State agency physicians and Dr. Gerber found Plaintiff capable of sedentary work with some postural and environmental limitations. (AR 28.) The medical evidence, however, predates Plaintiff's testimony at the hearing that he needs five to seven restroom breaks a day of ten minutes each. The medical evidence did not and could not consider Plaintiff's testimony. The physician RFCs also did not and could not consider the limitation asserted by Plaintiff, discuss it or offer any basis for excluding it from their RFCs. The ALJ erred in relying on this uninformed medical evidence that failed to address Plaintiff's testimony or to include an appropriate limitation in their RFCs.
Also, the ALJ's adverse credibility determination is of little relevance here. The ALJ discounted Plaintiff's credibility on the basis of the medical evidence, which as noted above did not consider Plaintiff's testimony. The ALJ also discounted Plaintiff's testimony because of inconsistent daily activities that appear to relate to his hip issues and have little to do with Plaintiff's need for bathroom breaks. The ALJ does not directly challenge Plaintiff's veracity or credibility on the number of bathroom breaks needed other than to cite Dr. Gerber's opinion which the Court has found to be an insufficient basis for rejecting a limitation for bathroom breaks.
The Court, however, is not reaching a determination that Plaintiff is disabled, only that the record is ambiguous and not fully developed. In Social Security cases, the ALJ has special independent duty to develop the record fully and fairly to assure the claimant's interests are considered.
Here, Plaintiff's testimony that he needed five to seven bathroom breaks a day of ten minutes each and the VE's testimony that such a limitation would preclude all work came at the end of the hearing, after the submission of medical evidence and testimony which did not consider the limitation Plaintiff asserted at the hearing. The ALJ should have asked Dr. Gerber (if he was still on the phone as claimed) or recontacted him (if as Plaintiff contends he already had disconnected) to inquire if five to seven bathroom breaks was plausible and if so whether his RFC should reflect that limitation. An ALJ is required to recontact a doctor if his report is insufficient to make a disability determination.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judgment be entered reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security and remanding this case for further proceedings in accordance with this Memorandum Opinion and Order and with law.