RAY KENT, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (Commissioner) denying her claim for child's insurance benefits.
Plaintiff was previously found eligible for disability insurance benefits (DIB) and supplemental security income (SSI). PageID.40. In a hearing decision dated February 23, 2004, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) William E. Decker found plaintiff disabled as of October 15, 2001. PageID.40, 113-118. At that time, plaintiff was 25 years old. PageID.42. The present case involves plaintiff's January 8, 2013 application for child's insurance benefits, based upon both her mother's and her father's accounts. PageID.40. In this application, plaintiff alleged a disability beginning March 31, 1998, one month prior to attainment of age 22. Id. In addressing this new claim, ALJ Luke A. Brennan stated that:
PageID.40. ALJ Brennan further explained that, "[u]nder the authority of the Social Security Act, the Social Security Administration has promulgated regulations that provide for the payment of disabled child's insurance benefits if the claimant is 18 years old or older and has a disability that began before attaining age 22 (20 CFR 404.350(a)(5)).
Plaintiff alleged a disability onset date of March 31, 1998 (about two weeks before her 22nd birthday) with alleged disabling conditions of major depression, substance abuse, borderline personality disorder, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). PageID.233, 238. ALJ Brennan reviewed plaintiff's claim de novo and entered a decision denying benefits on April 16, 2014. PageID.40-51. While ALJ Brennan found that plaintiff was disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act since age 25 (2001), she was not disabled under the Act prior to attaining age 22 (1998). This decision, which was later approved by the Appeals Council, has become the final decision of the Commissioner and is now before the Court for review.
This court's review of the Commissioner's decision is typically focused on determining whether the Commissioner's findings are supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C. §405(g); McKnight v. Sullivan, 927 F.2d 241 (6th Cir. 1990). "Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla of evidence but less than a preponderance; it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Cutlip v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 25 F.3d 284, 286 (6th Cir. 1994). A determination of substantiality of the evidence must be based upon the record taken as a whole. Young v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 925 F.2d 146 (6th Cir. 1990).
The scope of this review is limited to an examination of the record only. This Court does not review the evidence de novo, make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence. Brainard v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 889 F.2d 679, 681 (6th Cir. 1989). The fact that the record also contains evidence which would have supported a different conclusion does not undermine the Commissioner's decision so long as there is substantial support for that decision in the record. Willbanks v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 847 F.2d 301, 303 (6th Cir. 1988). Even if the reviewing court would resolve the dispute differently, the Commissioner's decision must stand if it is supported by substantial evidence. Young, 925 F.2d at 147.
A claimant must prove that he suffers from a disability in order to be entitled to benefits. A disability is established by showing that the claimant cannot engage in 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 twelve months. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.905; Abbott v. Sullivan, 905 F.2d 918, 923 (6th Cir. 1990). In applying the above standard, the Commissioner has developed a five-step analysis:
Heston v. Commissioner of Social Security, 245 F.3d 528, 534 (6th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted).
The claimant bears the burden of proving the existence and severity of limitations caused by her impairments and the fact that she is precluded from performing her past relevant work through step four. Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security, 336 F.3d 469, 474 (6th Cir. 2003). However, at step five of the inquiry, "the burden shifts to the Commissioner to identify a significant number of jobs in the economy that accommodate the claimant's residual functional capacity (determined at step four) and vocational profile." Id. If it is determined that a claimant is or is not disabled at any point in the evaluation process, further review is not necessary. Mullis v. Bowen, 861 F.2d 991, 993 (6th Cir. 1988).
"The federal court's standard of review for SSI cases mirrors the standard applied in social security disability cases." D'Angelo v. Commissioner of Social Security, 475 F.Supp.2d 716, 719 (W.D. Mich. 2007). "The proper inquiry in an application for SSI benefits is whether the plaintiff was disabled on or after her application date." Casey v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 987 F.2d 1230, 1233 (6th Cir. 1993).
Plaintiff's claim failed at the fifth step of the evaluation. The ALJ initially found that plaintiff had not attained the age of 22 as of the alleged disability onset date of March 31, 1998, and that she has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since that date. PageID.42. Second, the ALJ found that prior to attaining age 22, plaintiff had severe impairments of depression and dysthymic disorder. PageID.42. At the third step, the ALJ found that prior to attaining age 22, plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or equaled the requirements of the Listing of Impairments in 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1. PageID.43.
The ALJ decided at the fourth step that:
PageID.44. The ALJ also found that in 1996, the only year in which plaintiff had earnings consistent with substantial gainful activity, she worked for five different employers with total earnings of $6,645.06. PageID.49. Because "none of these jobs were performed for a significant amount of time," the ALJ found that plaintiff had no past relevant work. Id.
At the fifth step, the ALJ determined that plaintiff could perform unskilled work at all exertional levels in the national economy. PageID.50. Representative occupations in the regional economy (Michigan) for a person with plaintiff's residual functional capacity (RFC) included: grocery stocker (12,000 jobs); dishwasher (7,000 jobs); and hand packager (9,000 jobs). Id. Accordingly, the ALJ determined that based on the application for child's insurance benefits, plaintiff was not disabled as defined in the Social Security Act prior to April 13, 1998, the date she attained age 22. PageID.50-51.
Plaintiff raised the following issue on appeal:
An ALJ may discount a claimant's credibility where the ALJ "finds contradictions among the medical records, claimant's testimony, and other evidence." Walters v. Commissioner of Social Security, 127 F.3d 525, 531 (6th Cir. 1997). "It [i]s for the [Commissioner] and his examiner, as the fact-finders, to pass upon the credibility of the witnesses and weigh and evaluate their testimony." Heston, 245 F.3d at 536, quoting Myers v. Richardson, 471 F.2d 1265, 1267 (6th Cir. 1972). The court "may not disturb" an ALJ's credibility determination "absent [a] compelling reason." Smith v. Halter, 307 F.3d 377, 379 (6th Cir. 2001). The threshold for overturning an ALJ's credibility determination on appeal is so high, that the Sixth Circuit has stated that "[t]he ALJ's credibility findings are unchallengeable," Payne v. Commissioner of Social Security, 402 Fed. Appx. 109, 113 (6th Cir. 2010), and that "[o]n appeal, we will not disturb a credibility determination made by the ALJ, the finder of fact ... [w]e will not try the case anew, resolve conflicts in the evidence, or decide questions of credibility." Sullenger v. Commissioner of Social Security, 255 Fed. Appx. 988, 995 (6th Cir. 2007). Nevertheless, an ALJ's credibility determination must be reasonable and supported by substantial evidence. Rogers v. Commissioner of Social Security, 486 F.3d 234, 249 (6th Cir. 2007).
The ALJ's decision examined plaintiff's medical history prior to age 22 in detail, which included three notable incidents. The first incident was plaintiff's suicide attempt at age 17. At that time, claimant reported that she became increasingly suicidal, wrote a suicide note, drank excessively, drove out in her car, took about 200 Ibuprofen tablets, superficially cut her wrists, and then drove herself to the emergency room for treatment. PageID.45. Plaintiff had engaged in three months of outpatient therapy in the year before her attempt, but she did not have a history of use of psychotropic medications or a previous inpatient stay for mental health problems. Id. The record reflects that she was admitted to the hospital on September 28, 1993 and discharged from Forest View Psychiatric Hospital on October 8, 1993. PageID.635. The ALJ addressed the opinion of a hospital physician, Jack N. Carr, M.D.:
PageID.45.
The second incident occurred about 1 1/2 years later on April 5, 1995, when plaintiff was 18 years old (shortly before her 19th birthday). On that date, plaintiff was seen at the Fayette County Memorial Hospital in Washington Courthouse, Ohio, with a complaint of depression, suicidal ideation, and alcohol abuse. PageID.46. With respect to this admission,
PageID.46.
A third incident occurred about two years later on March 1, 1997, when plaintiff was 20 years old:
PageID.46.
In October and November, 1998, about six months after her 22nd birthday, plaintiff had three incidents.
PageID.46-47.
About two weeks later, plaintiff was admitted to a hospital.
PageID.47.
Plaintiff was seen in an emergency room the next month.
Id.
The ALJ noted that because a claimant's symptoms can sometimes suggest a greater level of severity of impairment than can be shown by the objective medical evidence alone, he considered the seven factors listed 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3) and 416.929(c)(3) in evaluating plaintiff's credibility:
20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3) and 416.927(c)(3).
With respect to plaintiff's daily activities, the ALJ found that prior to attainment of age 22, plaintiff graduated from high school, completed one year of college, and moved to Ohio to stay with a friend because she was not happy living with her parents. PageID.48.
PageID.48.
With respect to the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the claimant's pain or other symptoms, the ALJ found that "as a 17-year old girl, she felt despondent and admitted to cutting her wrists and taking an unknown quantity of Ibuprofen." PageID.48.
In reviewing factors that precipitate and aggravate the symptoms, the ALJ found, "[t]he record establishes that the claimant has not been compliant with treatment, would stop taking her medications, and would not follow through with recommended therapy." PageID.48.
With respect to the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication the claimant takes or has taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms, the ALJ found that plaintiff's testimony regarding her medications included those prescribed to treat her condition after age 22:
PageID.48.
In reviewing the treatment, other than medication, that the claimant receives or has received for relief of pain or other symptoms, the ALJ found that plaintiff's testimony with regarding her treatment prior to age 22 was not supported by the record:
PageID.48.
In reviewing any measures, other than treatment, the claimant uses or has used to relieve her pain or other symptoms, the ALJ noted that "[t]he claimant reported having electroconvulsive treatment at Pine Rest in 2012 and claims to have memory loss as a result; however, this was years after attainment of age 22." PageID.48-49.
Finally, the ALJ did not list any additional factors concerning plaintiff's functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms, citing Social Security Ruling (SSR) 96-7p ("Evaluation of Symptoms in Disability Claims: Assessing the Credibility of an Individual's Statements"), 1996 WL 374186 (July 2, 1996). Page ID.49.
The ALJ made the following finding with respect to plaintiff's credibility:
PageID.47, 49.
In her brief, plaintiff does not contest the ALJ's method for evaluating her credibility, but contends: that while the ALJ's decision never explains the reason for saying that plaintiff is not fully credible; that the decision does not make clear what weight it is giving to plaintiff's statements; and, that the decision does not identify the reasons for the weight assigned. Plaintiff's Brief at PageID.847.
The relevant ruling, SSR 96-7p, provides in pertinent part:
SSR 96-7p, 1996 WL 374186 at *4 (July 2, 1996).
Based on this record, the Court concludes that the ALJ appropriately evaluated plaintiff's credibility. At the administrative hearing, the ALJ allowed plaintiff's counsel to examine plaintiff and elicit all evidence which counsel felt was relevant to her claim. PageID.66-89. The ALJ observed plaintiff, reviewed her records, and provided a lengthy evaluation of her credibility. As discussed, the ALJ pointed out inconsistencies indicating that plaintiff was not a credible witness. In this regard, the Court notes that plaintiff stated that her memory was "significantly affected" by the 2012 electroconvulsive treatment, and that "I really get confused about dates and time periods." PageID.67. When asked if she noticed "a definite loss of memory" from the treatment, plaintiff stated "Terrible, yeah." PageID.86-87. Such statements admitting to memory loss call into question the accuracy of plaintiff's testimony, especially in a case like this, in which plaintiff is being asked to testify regarding her mental condition and impairments as they existed on a number of dates between 1993 and 1998, a time period which includes events which occurred more than 20 years before the administrative hearing.
Based on this record, the ALJ's finding that plaintiff's allegation that she had a disabling impairment prior to age 22 was not fully credible was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, plaintiff's claim of error will be denied.
The ALJ's determination is supported by substantial evidence. The Commissioner's decision will be
PageID.396.
