DENISE J. CASPER, District Judge.
Plaintiff Jeffrey P. Holmes ("Holmes") brings this action pursuant to the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of the final decision of Carolyn Colvin, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("the Commissioner"), issued by Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") Sean Teehan on August 24, 2014 denying his claim for Social Security disability insurance benefits ("SSDI") with the Social Security Administration ("SSA"). D. 1; D. 13; R. 11, 37, 423.
Holmes was 57 years old when he first applied for disability benefits in 2010. R. 423. He completed high school in 1970 and underwent training for refrigerator repair. R. 96-97, 513.
Previously, Holmes worked as a receptionist, office support worker and mail clerk. R. 103, 178. His duties entailed reception work, answering the phone, servicing the copy machines and distributing mail. R. 103. The copy machine and mail duties involved climbing stairs, kneeling, walking up a steep hill and standing on a concrete floor, all of which caused him severe pain.
On January 15, 2010, Holmes filed an application for SSDI benefits, claiming that, as of March 15, 2009, he was unable to work due to club feet. R. 11, 271. Holmes later clarified the reasons for his inability to work to include lower back pain, poor vision, foot deformities and club feet. D. 13; D. 22; R. 252-60, 274-75. Holmes then amended his disability onset date to January 1, 2011. R. 11, 326.
After initial review of Holmes's SSDI application, the SSA denied his claim on May 12, 2010. R. 11, 271-73. Holmes requested reconsideration of his claim on May 25, 2010, R. 274, and on November 29, 2010, the SSA again found Holmes to be ineligible for benefits, R. 275. On January 13, 2011, Holmes requested a hearing before an ALJ, R. 278, which was held on June 21, 2012, R. 11, 252. In a decision dated June 29, 2012, the ALJ determined that Holmes was not disabled within the definition of the Social Security Act and denied his claim. R. 11, 260. Holmes appealed the ALJ's decision. D. 1. On October 11, 2013, the Appeals Council vacated and remanded the case to the ALJ because of new evidence regarding Holmes's insurance status and because the ALJ had assigned great weight to the consultative examiner's and state agency's opinions that had been obtained prior to Holmes's amended onset date. R. 266-69. The Appeals Council determined that these sources were not able to consider pertinent evidence for the relevant period when rendering their opinions. R. 267-69. On July 10, 2014, the same ALJ conducted a second hearing, R. 11-37, 268, and issued a written decision on August 25, 2014 that Holmes was not disabled, D. 1; R. 1-4, 11-37. The Appeals Council denied Holmes's second request for review on December 18, 2015. D. 1; R. 1-4. Holmes then filed a timely suit in this Court. D. 1; D. 13; D. 22.
To obtain SSDI benefits, a claimant must prove that he has a "disability," defined by the Social Security Act as an "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 which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months." 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i)(1), 423(d)(1)(A);
The SSA follows a five-step sequential analysis to determine whether an individual is disabled and thus whether the application for benefits should be approved. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a);
This Court may enter "a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing." 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Judicial review is limited, however, "to determining whether the ALJ used the proper legal standards and found facts upon the proper quantum of evidence."
The Commissioner's factual findings, however, "are not conclusive when derived by ignoring evidence, misapplying the law, or judging matters entrusted to experts."
The ALJ considered extensive evidence regarding Holmes's medical history, including treatment records, assessments and diagnoses and testimony from Holmes and his physician regarding his foot deformities and back pain. R. 11-37, 639-872.
Holmes was born with club feet requiring him to wear corrective casts from birth until approximately age four. R. 17, 639. Despite never receiving corrective surgery, Holmes did not see a podiatrist until 2011, at the age of 58. R. 18, 689-90. During his initial January 12, 2011 visit with the podiatrist, Dr. Heffernan, Holmes complained of painful collapsed flat feet that caused discomfort especially with any significant standing or walking activities. R. 18, 689-90. Holmes had been wearing mid-rise leather walking shoes or boots and had found some mild benefit with wearing cushioned, over-the-counter arch supports, but he had not used any custom orthotic devices or bracing as an adult. R. 18, 689.
At that first visit, Dr. Heffernan observed Holmes's walking and saw no significant "antalgic gait" but noted "significant collapse of the medial longitudinal arches." R. 18-19, 689-90. Dr. Heffernan also observed, among other things, that Holmes had extremely tight gastroc and soleus muscles with ankle joint dorsiflexion limited to only two to three degrees with the knees extended. R. 19, 689. He further observed limited subtalar joint range of motion.
Based upon his examination and observations of Holmes, Dr. Heffernan recommended higher quality over-the-counter orthotic devices, custom orthotic devices and more supportive ankle-foot orthotics ("AFOs") in place of the cushioned footwear Holmes had been using.
Holmes returned for a second visit to Dr. Heffernan on February 22, 2011 after having purchased over-the-counter orthotic devices. R. 19, 699. Dr. Heffernan deemed these insufficient to counter the significant foot collapse.
At Holmes's visit on March 16, 2011, Dr. Heffernan noted that Holmes had been fitted for AFO braces, but insurance issues had prevented Holmes from getting them at that time. R. 20, 703. The doctor recommended temporary New Balance orthotics until Holmes could get the AFO devices.
On May 6, 2011, Kent VanHeukelom, a certified orthoptist indicated that he had fitted Holmes with bilateral custom molded ankle foot braces which should prevent his deformity from worsening if worn every day when walking or standing. R. 20, 684. At his next visit with Dr. Heffernan on May 17, 2011, Holmes reported that he found the AFO braces uncomfortable and ill-fitting. R. 20, 706-07. Dr. Heffernan observed Holmes walk with a slight antalgic gait when wearing the AFO braces.
Holmes returned with properly fitted orthotic devices for his next visit to Dr. Heffernan on June 15, 2011. R. 20, 710. At a visit on July 27, 2011, Holmes reported that, while wearing his orthotic brace devices on a regular basis, he had no significant problems and experienced less pain but still had some difficulty with increasing his stamina for walking. R. 20, 713. Dr. Heffernan also treated callus formation along the bottom side of Holmes's great toes by shaving the pinch calluses smooth.
During a visit on October 3, 2011, Holmes reported that he had recently developed pain at the left arch area from when he had attempted a brief walk without the AFO braces. R. 21, 716. Dr. Heffernan observed that Holmes had a "slight slow gait" with the AFO braces and advised Holmes to wear them with supportive shoes for all weight-bearing activities.
At the April 4, 2012 visit, Dr. Heffernan observed that Holmes had no significant distress with walking. R. 23, 806-07. Dr. Heffernan further noted that Holmes continued to walk with a rather slow gait with use of the customized AFOs, experiencing mild pain with deep palpitation over the medial arch areas over the posterior tibial tendons at the navicular tuberosity insertion sites.
On May 24, 2012, Holmes told Dr. Heffernan that any attempts at brief weight bearing without the AFO braces caused more severe pain and an inability to walk. R. 23, 808. Dr. Heffernan observed that Holmes had a very slow gait with the use of the AFOs as well as all the previously identified with the same level of severity.
On August 8, 2012, Holmes complained of pain with ambulation with any extensive walking without the AFO braces and an inability to walk any long distance comfortably, even with the braces. R. 24, 810. Dr. Heffernan noted that Holmes did not present with any acute distress, but walked with a slow gait.
On October 31, 2013, Holmes complained of worsening problems regarding endurance and his ability to walk, stating that he could barely walk two blocks without having to stop and sit down. R. 25, 813. Holmes described significant tightness, cramping and pain sensations in his calf muscle areas during and after walking activities.
On December 2, 2013, Holmes complained of increasing difficulty in his ability to walk and having no endurance with walking or standing activities. R. 25, 815. Holmes continued to describe significant tightness in the calf muscle areas at both legs with cramping and pain sensations during and after walking activities.
On March 3, 2014, Holmes reported increased difficulty in walking any significant distances and problems with endurance with standing and walking activities. R. 27, 817. Dr. Heffernan found that ankle joint dorsiflexion at this point was limited to one to two degrees at the right ankle and negative one degree at the left ankle with subtalar joints maintained in neutral position.
On June 9, 2014, Kent VanHeukelom, the orthoptist, wrote that he had seen Holmes on April 28, 2014 to increase the medial arch correction in both of his custom AFO braces. R. 29, 842. A second adjustment was made on May 19, 2014.
On June 16, 2014, Dr. Heffernan reported that Holmes had an "extreme limitation of the ability to walk, with impairments that seriously interfere with his ability to independently initiate, sustain and complete activities." R. 30, 862-63.
On January 19, 2011, Holmes had his initial evaluation with Tessa Rowin, a physical therapist, for his chronic low back pain. R. 19, 757-60. Holmes reported that his pain intensified when sitting in a bent over position and that it was hard to find a good sleeping position.
Holmes had further physical therapy sessions on January 28, January 31, and February 7, 2011. R. 19, 751, 753, 755. At the February 7th session, Ms. Rowin noted that Holmes had been experiencing back pain for two to three years and it had progressed over time such that it limited Holmes from full participation in daily activities due to biomechanical musculoskeletal pain from compressive loading of lumbar facet joints secondary to muscular tightness. R. 19, 751.
A MRI, dated November 23, 2011, showed a mild disc bulge at the L4-L5 vertebrae, prominent degenerative changes in the right L4-L5 facet joint with a small synovial cyst arising from the posterior aspect of the joint space and degenerative changes at the L5-S1 facet joints bilaterally. R. 21, 722.
Holmes returned to physical therapy on December 12, 2011 for the first time since February 2011 following this MRI. R. 21. He reported that he had been doing his exercises from prior physical therapy, but they did not help his pain. R. 21, 747-49. Holmes saw Ms. Rowin several more times over the next two months with a final visit on February 9, 2012. R. 22, 732-46.
On December 31, 2013, Holmes met with Deniz Ozel, M.D. for an evaluation of his chronic low back pain and lower extremity foot deformities. R. 26, 782-84. Dr. Ozel's report noted that Holmes had impaired sitting and standing tolerances.
Holmes returned to Dr. Ozel on February 4, 2014. R. 27, 828-29. He reported that he could not get the Lidoderm patch approved through his insurance company and that he had been completing stretching and physical therapy as prescribed, but that he was not feeling any improvement in pain or activity tolerance.
At Holmes's visit on March 4, 2014, he stated that he initially had an excellent response to Gabapentin, but then the pain returned. R. 28, 820-21. Dr. Ozel instructed Holmes to increase the dosage over a set period of time and, as of his visit on April 1, 2014, Holmes reported feeling less back stiffness in the morning, although it returned later in the day. R. 29, 836-37. Holmes returned to Dr. Ozel on May 27, 2014 and reported feeling "woozy" on the increased dose of Gabapentin, but had little benefit from the lower dose. R. 29, 839-40. Dr. Ozel advised Holmes to wean himself off of Gabapentin if it was not helping with his pain.
During the second administrative hearing
Holmes testified that he previously worked in a mail room, as a lab rodent cage washer at a medical school and as an office support worker/receptionist. R. 99, 101, 103. He last worked for three hours at a temporary job in June 2012, but could not sit or stand for a sustained period due to pain in his feet, legs and lower back. R. 30, 97.
Holmes's most recent work was at the Unitarian Universalist Association ("UUA"). R. 102-03. Holmes testified that he performed a variety of tasks there:
R. 103. He further testified that his mail room duties at the UUA included walking to a different building and standing on a concrete floor with no mats.
As to his home life, Holmes testified that he lives on the third floor of an apartment building. R. 31, 106. He must climb two flights of stairs to get to and from his apartment and an additional flight down to the basement when he does laundry.
Holmes further testified that he can sometimes prepare a simple meal, can clean his apartment using long-handled mops and brooms and can spend fifteen minutes per day checking his e-mail and paying bills on the computer. R. 31, 107, 109-10. He leaves his apartment approximately every third day. R. 31, 108. When leaving his apartment, Holmes will rarely go farther than a few blocks. R. 107-10. He walks to the local library a few times per month, but rests frequently along the way and sits down as soon as he arrives at the library. R. 31, 108. He travels to the corner store/supermarket once or twice per week by bus. R. 31, 107-08. The supermarket is located four blocks away, but he is unable to walk that far without pain.
Holmes testified that his pain prevents him from doing any sustained activity and that he has to shift and move positions constantly to provide any relief. R. 112, 118. He uses a variety of home remedies for pain. R. 118-21. Holmes testified that he used Gabapentin as prescribed by Dr. Ozel, but that it failed to provide any long-term, significant relief and caused him to experience undesirable side effects leading him to discontinue its use. R. 30, 121.
Dr. Heffernan testified that he had been Holmes's treating podiatrist since January 12, 2011 and had seen Holmes at seventeen appointments, the most recent being one month before the hearing. R. 31, 122-23.
In response to the ALJ's questions, Dr. Heffernan explained the reasoning behind his prior RFC reports that Holmes cannot walk for more than five minutes, needs to shift at will and be able to take unscheduled breaks. R. 31. Dr. Heffernan admitted that the majority of his support came from Holmes's subjective complaints and some observation of Holmes during appointments. R. 31, 124, 126-27. He testified that many foot conditions can affect the knees, hips and lower back, but also acknowledged that Holmes's back problems were out of his area of expertise. R. 31, 138-39. The remainder of Dr. Heffernan testimony included a recap of his findings during his seventeen appointments with Holmes. R. 31, 131-38;
The medical expert, Dr. Axline, a licensed orthopedic surgeon in New York,
Dr. Axline summarized Holmes's medical issues as: (1) degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine which is minimal in degree and not associated with any neurologic deficit, R. 149, and; (2) pes planus (flat feet), R. 152. Dr. Axline testified at length regarding how Holmes's impairments did not meet SSA listings, R. 152, 155, 156, and the ALJ asked him about Holmes's exertional and/or non-exertional limitations based upon the medical record, R. 156. Dr. Axline spent some time discussing the lack of evidence for the balance and visual issues which had not been previously identified as severe impairments.
Dr. Axline recommended a job limiting Holmes to lifting ten pounds frequently and twenty pounds occasionally, as a precautionary measure, because people who have degenerative disc disease do well if limited to that range.
In providing his opinion, Dr. Axline relied upon the progress notes of Holmes's treating physicians, as well as the lower back MRIs and foot x-rays taken at various times during the period at issue. R. 32, 153-54, 158, 160. Holmes's attorney challenged Dr. Axline's interpretation of these objective records, claiming that Dr. Axline incorrectly ignored Holmes's complaints of pain and discomfort that appeared potentially consistent with the objective findings. R. 33, 162-65.
The VE testified that Holmes's past work consisted of: office helper, an unskilled job with a Specific Vocational Preparation ("SVP") of 2, as light work; receptionist, a semiskilled job with an SVP of 4, as sedentary work; and mail clerk, an unskilled job with an SVP of 2, as light work. R. 178-79. The ALJ asked the VE hypothetical questions about work capacity. R. 180-83. Each question assumed an individual of Holmes's age, education and work experience.
R. 180. The VE testified that of Holmes's past work, the only job that would fall within those limitations would be the receptionist job.
R. 181. The ALJ then asked if there would be any jobs other than receptionist in the regional or national economy that would utilize the "readily transferable skills that you've indicated?" R. 182. The VE testified that there would be other jobs with those skills, including appointment clerk, a semiskilled job, SVP of 3, as sedentary work; information clerk, a semiskilled job, SVP of 4, as sedentary work; and a credit reporting clerk, a semiskilled job, SVP of 4, as sedentary work. R. 182-83. The ALJ asked whether the job of travel clerk might be included in that grouping. R. 183. The VE declined to include that job because it would likely take additional training and would not be readily transferable from a receptionist position. R. 183-84.
The ALJ posed a second hypothetical:
R. 185. The VE responded that the same jobs would be available to both hypothetical people from question one and question two. R. 185-86.
The ALJ then provided a third hypothetical:
R. 186. The VE replied that such limitations would preclude all work activity.
Holmes's counsel primarily questioned the VE about the specific limitations that Holmes had testified that he experienced. R. 187-91.
Following the five-step analysis, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520, at step one, the ALJ found that Holmes had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since January 1, 2011, the amended disability onset date. R. 14. At step two, the ALJ found that Holmes's foot deformities and mild degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine constituted severe impairments.
R. 16. Based upon this RFC, the ALJ concluded that Holmes is able to perform his past relevant work, specifically as a receptionist. R. 35. As an alternative conclusion, at step five, the ALJ found that Holmes had acquired skills from his past relevant work that would be transferable to other administrative occupations with jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy. R. 36. Accordingly, the ALJ determined that Holmes was not disabled as defined by the Social Security Act. R. 37.
Holmes seeks reversal of the ALJ's decision or, alternatively, remand to the ALJ. D. 13 at 30. Holmes challenges: (1) the weight afforded to treating physiatrist Dr. Ozel's opinion; (2) the ALJ's conclusion that Holmes is capable of performing his past relevant work; (3) the ALJ's conclusion that Holmes can perform other semi-skilled jobs which would require little, if any, vocational adjustment from his prior work, and; (4) that the ALJ's decision was not supported by substantial evidence.
Holmes argues that the ALJ erred by not giving controlling weight to Dr. Ozel's opinion as a treating physician. D. 13 at 18-20. Holmes asserts that the ALJ focused upon Holmes's subjective reporting of his limitations and failed to provide substantial evidence supporting his decision.
The ALJ gave Dr. Ozel's opinion little weight because: (1) "Dr. Ozel's treatment records suggest that her opinions were based upon the claimant's reports," and; (2) "there is no support for Dr. Ozel's opinion that the claimant's functioning had decreased by June 18, 2014" as Holmes "told Dr. Ozel that he was walking a few blocks at a time running errands around his neighborhood, which is inconsistent with the limitations expressed by Dr. Ozel." R. 34.
In light of the record, the ALJ did not err in giving Dr. Ozel's opinion little weight. It is well settled that an ALJ is not required to accept a treating physician's opinion.
Where an ALJ determines that the opinion of a treating source is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ considers six factors to assess the proper weight to give the opinion: (1) length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination; (2) nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) supportability of the treating source's opinion; (4) consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (5) specialization of the treating source, and; (6) other factors that tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i)-(ii), (c)(3)-(6). An ALJ is not required to expressly consider the six factors in his or her decision but the decision must include "good reasons" for the weight given to the treating source.
In considering the relevant factors, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), the ALJ provided good reasons for not giving Dr. Ozel's opinion controlling weight, R. 34, and the ALJ's determinations are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Although the ALJ did not explicitly consider all six of the weighted factors, his analysis of several of them is sufficient to demonstrate how Dr. Ozel's opinion was evaluated and substantial evidence supports the ALJ giving it little weight.
The ALJ assessed the first RFC completed by Dr. Ozel on March 4, 2014.
The ALJ next considered the second RFC that Dr. Ozel completed on June 18, 2014 that further reduced Holmes's ability to sit from fifteen to thirty minutes at a time to ten to twenty minutes at a time. R. 34, 788-89, 866-67. At a visit on May 27, 2014, Holmes reported to Dr. Ozel that he could walk a few blocks at a time and run errands around his neighborhood, which the ALJ believed to be inconsistent with the increased limitations expressed by Dr. Ozel in the June 18th RFC. R. 34. Although the ALJ did not provide a detailed analysis of why he believed the opinion to be inconsistent, he did point to the inconsistency with the other substantial evidence in the record as a whole, namely Holmes's own prior representations to Dr. Ozel that he could run errands and walk several blocks and his average self-reported pain of three out of ten, as a reason to provide Dr. Ozel's opinion with little weight.
The SSA argues that because Holmes never raised the issue of his work being a "composite job" at any level during the administrative process it should be considered waived before this Court. D. 22 at 21-22. The First Circuit has held that objections not presented to the ALJ are waived.
Even if Holmes's argument was not waived, and, assuming arguendo, this Court found his prior work to be a composite job, the error would be harmless. The ALJ correctly concluded at step five that there existed other jobs that Holmes was capable of performing.
Holmes argues that the ALJ failed to comply with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1568(d)(4) by not properly asking the VE about the transferability of Holmes's skills with regard to vocational adjustment. D. 13 at 25-27. That is, Holmes asserts that he should have been found disabled as a matter of law based upon the Medical-Vocational Guidelines ("the Grids") set forth by the Commissioner.
The Grids laid out in Appendix 2 to Subpart P of Part 404 are used by ALJs and the SSA to determine if, based upon the given RFC and the claimant's background, the SSA must find a claimant disabled. 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 2. Each row in the Grids considers age, education and previous work experience, in light of a given RFC, and concludes with either disabled or not disabled.
The ALJ acknowledged Holmes's advanced age and his high school education. R. 35. The ALJ accepted, over the objection of counsel, R. 187, the VE's opinion that Holmes's prior work as a receptionist was semi-skilled and that Holmes acquired various clerical skills during his time in that job. R. 35-36. While Holmes only appeals the issue of transferability of skills, the Court notes that the ALJ was well within his discretion, given the record, to accept expert vocational testimony—based off of Holmes's description of his work—that Holmes's prior work was semiskilled and that Holmes obtained the specified clerical skills during the performance of his duties.
Regarding transferability of skills, § 404.1568(d)(4) states that if a claimant is of advanced age, skills acquired from prior work will only be considered transferable if the new work "is so similar to [claimant's] previous work that [claimant] would need to make very little, if any, vocational adjustment in terms of tools, work processes, work settings, or the industry." 20 C.F.R. 404.1568(d)(4). Holmes argues that the ALJ, rather than ask this question in its entirety to the VE, improperly abbreviated his question to "could you please provide me the jobs that would have very little to no vocational adjustment required." D. 13 at 26; R. 182. This paraphrasing, however, is not a fatal flaw to the ALJ's decision.
Holmes cites numerous cases in support of his contention that "courts have remanded cases where ALJs failed to comply with the Commissioner's regulation and ruling pertaining to transferability of skills for older claimants." D. 13 at 27-28. In each of these cases, however, the ALJ made an error such as failing to give reasons for concluding that the claimant would have to make very little adjustment and failing to identify the skills that would transfer from past work,
The ALJ asked the VE to "[a]ssume if you will that a hypothetical person is of the same age, education, language and work background as the claimant." R. 180. The ALJ then provided a hypothetical set of limitations and asked the VE whether a person with such limitations would be able to perform any of the past work of the claimant.
The ALJ next asked the VE whether there would be any jobs available other than receptionist in the regional or national economy that would utilize the readily transferable skills indicated. R. 182. The VE responded affirmatively.
The VE's testimony addressed Holmes's advanced age, specific transferable skills obtained at previous work and jobs that would take little to no vocational adjustment based upon those particular listed skills. R. 177-84. Although the ALJ did not ask about transferable skills using the exact language of the C.F.R., his question included the essential language of "very little to no vocational adjustment required" such that, in conjunction with the context of the questioning as a whole, the VE had adequate information to opine about the transferability of Holmes's skills.
Additionally, once the VE confirmed Holmes's prior work as semi-skilled and specifically identified the transferable skills obtained from said work, the ALJ would have been able to make a transferability determination simply by citing to the published Social Security Policy Statement SSR 82-41 relied upon by Holmes.
A reasonable mind, reviewing the record as a whole, could accept it as adequate to support the ALJ's conclusion that Holmes's past work and skills—in spite of his advanced age—were readily transferrable and that he did not qualify as disabled. As such, the ALJ's opinion is supported by substantial evidence. R. 35-36, 177-87.
Holmes contends that the ALJ failed to provide substantial evidence supporting his credibility decision of Holmes's testimony. D. 13 at 28. Giving deference to the ALJ, his determination that Holmes's testimony was not credible is supported by substantial evidence. R. 33.
The Commissioner uses a two-step process to consider the statements or reports that a claimant provides regarding his or her symptoms and functional limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a);
Second, the ALJ must "evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the claimant's symptoms to determine the extent to which they limit [his] function."
If, after weighing the above factors, the ALJ chooses not to credit the claimant's subjective complaints, such credibility determination "must be supported by substantial evidence and the ALJ must make specific findings as to the relevant evidence he considered in determining to disbelieve the [claimant]."
The ALJ's explanation for not crediting Holmes's testimony is such that "a reasonable mind, reviewing the evidence in the record as a whole, could accept it as adequate to support his conclusion."
Holmes argues that each of the specific reasons given by the ALJ is incomplete, as each ignores critical relevant facts. D. 13 at 28. For instance, Holmes does live on the third floor of his building, but he has difficulty hauling laundry up the stairs, goes one step at a time down the stairs and hangs onto the hand rail "good and hard."
The ALJ may have omitted some of these aspects of Holmes's testimony, but this is not a fatal flaw. The ALJ acknowledged Holmes's difficulty and discomfort in undertaking daily tasks and also noted that Holmes alternated sitting and standing at will during the hearing. R. 33. The ALJ was within his discretion, however, given the factors listed in § 404.1529(c)(3), to consider Holmes's testimony regarding daily tasks when determining credibility.
A reasonable mind, examining the record as a whole, could accept the evidence cited by the ALJ as adequate for his credibility determination.
For the above reasons, the Court ALLOWS the Commissioner's motion to affirm, D. 21, and DENIES Holmes's motion to reverse, D. 13.
