FRANK D. WHITNEY, District Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Harold L. Kiser's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 13), filed May 21, 2018, and Defendant Acting Commissioner of Social Security Nancy A. Berryhill's ("Commissioner") Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 15), filed July 6, 2018. Plaintiff, through counsel, seeks judicial review of an unfavorable administrative decision on her application for Supplemental Social Security Income ("SSI") and Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB").
Having reviewed and considered the written arguments, administrative record, and applicable authority, and for the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED; the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED; and the Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff originally filed a Title XVI application for supplemental security income on December 23, 2009, which was subsequently denied. (Tr. 34). This previous claim was denied by ALJ Wendell Sims on December 1, 2011, becoming the final decision when the Appeals Council denied request for review on October 26, 2012. (Tr. 34). Thereafter, Plaintiff was found eligible for Medicaid benefits on August 14, 2013, receiving a rating of "disabled" under Medicaid eligibility rules. (Tr. 48).
Plaintiff subsequently filed an application for Title II and Title XVI benefits on December 12, 2012 (Tr. 34). Plaintiff alleges disability beginning July 21, 2009 (Tr. 34). After his application was denied initially and upon reconsideration, Plaintiff requested a hearing (Tr. 34). After a hearing on September 8, 2014, (Tr. 34), the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision (Tr. 31). Plaintiff's subsequent request for review by the Appeals Council was denied. (Tr. 1). Plaintiff now appeals this decision to this Court.
In the case at bar, the ALJ found Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since July 21, 2009 and met the insured status requirements through December 31, 2018. (Tr. 37). The ALJ found Plaintiff to have the following severe impairments: "prostate cancer, urinary tract disorder, degenerative disc disease, and organic mental disorder (20 CFR 404.1520(c) and 416.920(c))[.]" (Tr. 38). The ALJ determined Plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart B, App. 1. (Tr. 40). The ALJ then found Plaintiff had the Residual Functional Capacity ("RFC") to perform sedentary work as defined in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1567(a), 416.967(a), with the following additional limitations:
(Tr. 42). In response to a hypothetical that factored in Plaintiff's age, education, work experience, and RFC, the vocational expert ("VE") testified that Plaintiff could perform his past relevant work as a document preparer/scanner, final assembler, and addresser, in addition to others' jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy. (Tr. 50). As a result, the ALJ concluded Plaintiff was not disabled, as defined under the Social Security Act, from July 21, 2009, through the date of the ALJ's decision. (Tr. 50). Plaintiff has exhausted all administrative remedies and now appeals pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Section 405(g) of Title 42 of the United States Code provides judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner's denial of social security benefits. When examining a disability determination, a reviewing court is required to uphold the determination when an ALJ has applied correct legal standards and the ALJ's factual findings are supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g);
"Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion."
"In order to establish entitlement to benefits, a claimant must provide evidence of a medically determinable impairment that precludes returning to past relevant work and adjustment to other work."
"If the claimant fails to demonstrate she has a disability that meets or medically equals a listed impairment at step three, the ALJ must assess the claimant's residual functional capacity ("RFC") before proceeding to step four, which is `the most [the claimant] can still do despite [her physical and mental] limitations [that affect h[er] ability to work].'"
Proceeding to step four, the burden remains with the claimant to show he or she is unable to perform past work.
Plaintiff raises five separate issues in this case on appeal. First, Plaintiff contends the ALJ used an RFC determination that did not give proper weight to the Medicaid finding of disabled. (Doc. No. 14 at 3). Second, Plaintiff argues the ALJ did not explain why limitations in medical opinion he gave significant weight are not included in the RFC. (Doc. No. 14 at 3-4.) Third, Plaintiff asserts the ALJ did not consider and weigh every medical opinion received and contained in the record, specifically that of Dr. Bonner. (Doc. No. 14 at 4.) Fourth, Plaintiff alleges that the vocational witness appears to conflict with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles ("DOT"), and the ALJ accepted their testimony without first obtaining an explanation.
First, Plaintiff contends that the ALJ failed to afford proper weight to the Medicaid determination of disabled. A North Carolina Medicaid decision is not binding on the Social Security Administration but does constitute evidence the ALJ must consider when reaching a determination.
Here, the ALJ evaluated the Medicaid decision and provided "persuasive, specific, and valid reasons" for affording it less than substantial weight.
Plaintiff also challenges whether the ALJ sufficiently explained the basis for the RFC finding. Upon review, this Court cannot re-weigh conflicting evidence or make credibility determinations,
Here, the ALJ properly explained how he evaluated the opinions of the state agency medical experts in reaching the RFC determination. In forming the RFC, the ALJ found Plaintiff can do "simple, routine, repetitive tasks and mak[e] simple, work-related decisions." (Tr. 42). Plaintiff contends the ALJ, despite stating he gave great weight to the opinions of state agency psychological consultants, did not adequately explain why some of these opinions were not included in the RFC. (Doc. No. 14 at 7). Plaintiff specifically notes, "The ALJ did not discuss [] portions of the consultants' opinions" at pages 117-18, 131-32, 149-50, and 165-66 of the Administrative Record.
Plaintiff argues the ALJ failed to weigh every medical opinion in the record as required by 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927. (Doc. No. 14 at 12). If the ALJ does not accept all or parts of a medical opinion, then the ALJ is required to explain her reasons for rejecting the probative evidence that she did not accept.
Here, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred by not evaluating the June 2015 opinion of Dr. Bonner. The letter, dated June 24, 2015, appears to be a conclusory opinion stating: "[Plaintiff] has multiple problems including memory loss, lumbar degenerative disc disease and arthritis, neuropathy, COPD, diabetes, chronic low back pain, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and is not a candidate for a 40 hour work week to any job that I am aware of. I would consider him completely disabled for employment[.]" (Tr. 1150). The opinion appears to be a two-sentence summary conclusion of Dr. Bonner's 2012 opinion, which the ALJ evaluated in reaching the RFC determination. (Tr. 46). Further, the ALJ properly afforded little weight to this finding because an opinion that an individual is disabled is not a medical opinion, but rather an issue reserved to the Commissioner. (Tr. 46, 1005;
Additionally, the June 2015 letter from Dr. Bonner was submitted after the ALJ issued his decision on May 7, 2015, (Tr. 50), and therefore was not contained in the initial record. The Appeals Council examined the letter as part of Plaintiff's request for a review of the ALJ's initial decision but declined to grant this request to supplement. (Tr. 10). Plaintiff fails to assign error to the Appeals Council holding there was not a reasonable probability that the duplicative June 2015 opinion would have changed the outcome of the decision when they declined review. As such, the ALJ did not err in evaluating all the medical opinions contained in the record at the time of decision and properly abided by the regulation's requirements.
Next, Plaintiff contends the ALJ accepted testimony from the VE that appears to conflict with the DOT without first obtaining an explanation. The VE testified that an individual of Plaintiff's age, education, work experience, and RFC could perform work such as 1) document preparer/scanner, DOT # 249.587-018, for which there are 14,000 jobs nationwide; 2) final assembler, optical goods, DOT # 713.687-018, for which there are 900 jobs nationwide; and 3) addresser, DOT # 209.587-010, for which there are 700 jobs nationwide. (Tr. 50). SSR 00-4p requires if a VE's testimony appears to conflict with the DOT, an ALJ must obtain a reasonable explanation for the apparent conflict. SSR 00-4p, 2000 WL 1898704 at*4 (S.S.A.). The Fourth Circuit has further stated that "the context of the word "apparent" in SSR 00-4p . . . makes plain that the Ruling intends the latter meaning — that the ALJ must identify where the expert's testimony seems to, but does not necessarily, conflict with the Dictionary."
Plaintiff first argues the DOT description for the job of "addresser" "raises serious doubts about the viability of such an occupation in the current national economy." (Doc. No. 14 at 17). However, Plaintiff submitted no evidence that the jobs of "addresser" and "final assembler" no longer exist. The Fourth Circuit has noted that a relatively small number of jobs constitute substantial evidence to support a nondisability finding.
Plaintiff additionally claims that "all the jobs identified by the vocational witness and accepted by the ALJ to deny [Plaintiff]'s application conflict the ALJ's limitation to simple, routine, repetitive tasks with one-to-three steps of instructions." (Doc. No. 14 at 21-22). But, as the Commissioner notes, the RFC does not limit Plaintiff to jobs involving one-to-three step instructions. (Tr. 42; Doc. No. 16 at 12).
(Doc. No. 14 at 20). However, this Court does not find an apparent conflict in which inquiry by the ALJ was required.
Last, Plaintiff contends the ALJ erred by not explaining how he evaluated the credibility of Plaintiff's alleged limitations in determining whether his claims were supported by substantial evidence. (Doc. No. 14 at 22). The ALJ's decision states: "After careful consideration of the evidence, I find the claimant's medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms; however, the claimant's statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms are not entirely credible for the reasons explained in this decision." (Tr. 43). Plaintiff claims this "boilerplate credibility finding" is meaningless, (Doc. No. 14 at 23), but does not acknowledge the subsequent paragraph, which states: "Specifically, I find the claimant's allegations of disabling symptoms and limitations are greater than what would be expected, based on the objective medical evidence. Overall, the treatment records simply do not support the level of distress, pain, limited functioning or other symptomatology alleged by the claimant." (Tr. 43).
As the Commissioner notes, the ALJ pointed out several inconsistencies in the record throughout the decision which were factored into his credibility determination. Plaintiff alleged his obstructive sleep apnea was a severe impairment despite a report that it was controlled through use of a CPAP. (Tr. 38, 295). Inconsistencies with Plaintiff's claimed limitations regarding hypertension, (Tr. 39), as well as contradictions related to Plaintiff's alleged pain contributing to significant standing, walking, and sitting limitations, (Tr. 42, 44, 370), were also considered in the credibility determination. Additionally, the ALJ compared Plaintiff's complaints of memory loss with mental status examinations, (Tr. 45, 592, 600), and complaints of irritability and depression to his report that he was doing well overall after visiting with family and friends. (Tr. 45, 1132, 1142). According, the Court finds the ALJ sufficiently evaluated the credibility of Plaintiff's alleged limitations in reaching his decision.
For these reasons, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 10) is DENIED; the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 12) is GRANTED; and the Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
