KIMBERLY E. WEST, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Sheila K. Sweeten (the "Claimant") requests judicial review of the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the "Commissioner") denying Claimant's application for disability benefits under the Social Security Act. Claimant appeals the decision of the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") and asserts that the Commissioner erred because the ALJ incorrectly determined that Claimant was not disabled. For the reasons discussed below, it is the recommendation of the undersigned that the Commissioner's decision be REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.
Disability under the Social Security Act is defined as the "inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment. . ." 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). A claimant is disabled under the Social Security Act "only if his physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy. . ." 42 U.S.C. §423(d)(2)(A). Social Security regulations implement a five-step sequential process to evaluate a disability claim. See, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920.
Judicial review of the Commissioner's determination is limited in scope by 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). This Court's review is limited to two inquiries: first, whether the decision was supported by substantial evidence; and, second, whether the correct legal standards were applied.
Claimant was born on December 21, 1957 and was 56 years old at the time of the ALJ's decision. Claimant completed her high school education and obtained an associate's degree. Claimant has worked in the past as a medical technologist. Claimant alleges an inability to work beginning December 30, 2011 due to limitations resulting from stress, anxiety, chronic back, hip, and knee pain, OCD, and panic attacks.
On May 24, 2012, Claimant protectively filed for disability insurance benefits under Title II (42 U.S.C. § 401, et seq.) and supplemental security income pursuant to Title XVI (42 U.S.C. § 1381, et seq.) of the Social Security Act. Claimant's applications were denied initially and upon reconsideration. An administrative hearing was conducted by Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") Bernard Porter on April 22, 2014 by video with Claimant appearing in Fort Smith, Arkansas and the ALJ presiding in McAlester, Oklahoma. The ALJ issued an unfavorable decision on July 8, 2014. On January 13, 2015, the Appeals Council denied review. As a result, the decision of the ALJ represents the Commissioner's final decision for purposes of further appeal. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.981, 416.1481.
The ALJ made his decision at step five of the sequential evaluation. He determined that while Claimant suffered from severe impairments, she retained the RFC to perform a range of medium work with limitations.
Claimant asserts the ALJ committed error in (1) failing to determine that Claimant met a listing; (2) reaching an unsupported RFC finding; and (3) making inadequate findings at step five.
In his decision, the ALJ determined Claimant suffered from the severe impairments of obesity, migraine headaches, a history of gastroesophageal reflux disease ("GERD"), history of right colon diverticulosis, bipolar disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder ("PTSD"). (Tr. 17). He concluded that Claimant retained the RFC to perform a range of medium work. In so doing, the ALJ found Claimant could lift, carry, push, and pull 50 pounds occasionally and 25 pounds frequently; stand and/or walk six hours in an eight hour workday; and sit for six hours in an eight hour workday. She was precluded from climbing any ladders or scaffolds or perform any crawling. She was found to be unable to read very small print but could read ordinary newspaper style print. She should not work around unprotected heights, around moving mechanical parts, or in environmenets with temperature extremes. Claimant was limited to simple tasks and simple work-related decisions with occasional interaction with co-workers, supervisors, and the public. Time off tasks would be accommodated by normal workday breaks but she would be off task up to 5% of the workday and may miss up to one day of work per month due to episodic symptomology. (Tr. 20). After consultation with a vocational expert, the ALJ determined Claimant could perform the representative jobs of hand packager, box maker, and order puller, all of which the vocational expert testified existed in sufficient numbers in the regional and national economies. (Tr. 24). Based upon these findings, the ALJ concluded Claimant was not disabled from December 30, 2011 through the date of the decision. (Tr. 25).
Claimant contends the ALJ should have found that she met a listing. Specifically, Claimant contends that she meets Listings 12.04 (affective disorders) and 12.06 (anxiety-related disorders). The ALJ is required to follow the procedure for determining mental impairments provided by regulation. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520a, 416.920a; See, Listing of Impairments. The procedure must be followed for the evaluation to be considered valid.
Claimant states in a later argument that the ALJ failed to make findings concerning paragraph A. The ALJ certainly could have provided a more complete analysis of his paragraph A findings in his decision. His evaluation of the paragraph B criteria, however, finds adequate foundation in the medical record to find that it is supported by substantial evidence. The fact the ALJ's discussion of paragraph A is somewhat wanting is not fatal to the decision since both paragraphs' criteria must be met.
The ALJ determined Claimant had mild limitations in performing her daily activities, moderate limitations in social functioning, moderate limitations in attention, concentration, persistence, and pace, and Claimant has had no episodes of decompensation of extended duration. (Tr. 18-19). While Claimant cites to several instances in the record where she was diagnosed with various conditions which affected the four functional areas in Part B, she does not direct this Court to any references which would indicate that she suffered from greater limitations than found by the ALJ.
Moreover, the ALJ's findings on the four domains of Part B are supported by the disability determination services psychologists' findings. Dr. Burnard Pearce and Dr. Corine Samwel both determined the same level of limitation as adopted by the ALJ and both found Claimant did not meet a listing. (Tr. 33-35, 45-46). This Court finds no error in the ALJ's determination that Claimant did not meet a listing at step three.
Claimant finds several deficiencies in the ALJ's RFC assessment. Claimant states the ALJ improperly disregarded the medical opinion of Dr. Donald Chambers. Dr. Chambers determined Claimant had a marked limitation in sustaining attention and application of tasks. (Tr. 232). Claimant contends this opinion was supported by other evidence including the opinion of Dr. Robert Spray dated August 15, 2012. Dr. Spray found Claimant's attention and concentration were "poorer than one might assume from her job history. She is forgetful." (Tr. 251). He also found a marked limitation in attention and concentration in a medical source statement dated September 2, 2014. (Tr. 245).
The ALJ determined the medical evidence, including Dr. Chambers' treatment records, was inconsistent with Dr. Chambers' opinion. He cited to the fact Claimant returned to Dr. Chambers' in June of 2012 after a seven year absence to seek treatment and received medication. (Tr. 22). In a July, 2012 visit, Dr. Chambers found the medication was helping. She returned because she was not thinking clearly and Dr. Chambers adjusted her medication. About a month later, Dr. Spray noted Claimant's IQ was average and she persisted well at the examination. (Tr. 19). The ALJ concluded that Dr. Chambers' provided no documentation to support his summary of treatment and the functional limitations he listed. As a result, he gave Dr. Chambers' position "minimal weight." (Tr. 23).
In deciding how much weight to give the opinion of a treating physician, an ALJ must first determine whether the opinion is entitled to "controlling weight."
Even if a treating physician's opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, "[t]reating source medical opinions are still entitled to deference and must be weighed using all of the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527."
The ALJ did not proceed through the
Since the ALJ is required to re-evaluate the opinions of Dr. Chambers and Dr. Spray, he shall also reassess whether the RFC should be modified as well as the hypothetical questions to the vocational expert.
The decision of the Commissioner is not supported by substantial evidence and the correct legal standards were not applied. Therefore, the Magistrate Judge recommends for the above and foregoing reasons, the ruling of the Commissioner of Social Security Administration should be
The parties are herewith given fourteen (14) days from the date of the service of these Report and Recommendation to file with the Clerk of the court any objections, with supporting brief. Failure to object to the Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days will preclude appellate review of this decision by the District Court based on such findings.
