JAMES M. MUNLEY, District Judge.
The above-captioned action is one seeking review of a decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") denying Plaintiff Carrie L. Jamison's claim for social security disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits.
On September 15, 2008, Jamison filed protectively
Jamison then filed a complaint in this court on April 18, 2011. Supporting and opposing briefs were submitted and the appeal
Disability insurance benefits are paid to an individual if that individual is disabled and "insured," that is, the individual has worked long enough and paid social security taxes. The last date that a claimant meets the requirements of being insured is commonly referred to as the "date last insured." It is undisputed that Jamison meets the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act through December 31, 2012. Tr. 14, 16 and 180.
Supplemental security income is a federal income supplement program funded by general tax revenues (not social security taxes). It is designed to help aged, blind or other disabled individuals who have little or no income.
Jamison, who was born in the United States on September 25, 1964, graduated from high school in 1982 and can read, write, speak and understand the English language and perform basic mathematical functions. Tr. 35, 141, 170, 184 and 206. During her elementary and secondary schooling Jamison attended regular education classes. Tr.190. After graduating from high school she attended college for 8 months to become a paralegal. Tr. 36 and 190.
Jamison held several jobs which can be considered past relevant employment.
Records of the Social Security Administration reveal that Jamison had earnings in the years 1980 through 1982, 1984 through 1986, 1988 through 1991, and 1994 through 2008. Tr. 154. No earnings were reported for the years 1983, 1987, 1992 and 1993.
Jamison claims that she became disabled on September 2, 2008, because of degenerative disc disease of the neck and back;
On September 16, 2008, Jamison was interviewed face-to-face by R. Slaughter, an employee of the Social Security Administration, who observed that Jamison had no problem with hearing, reading, breathing, understanding, coherency, concentrating, talking, answering questions, sitting, seeing, using hands and writing. Tr. 181-182. Interviewer Slaughter did observe that Jamison had some problems with standing and walking. Slaughter noted that "[c]laimant was well prepared & helpful" but that "[s]he rose from her chair & walked slowly." Tr. 182.
Jamison on October 4, 2008, completed a 7-page document entitled "Function Report — Adult" in which she stated that she had no problem with personal care, including dressing, bathing, grooming and feeding herself. Tr. 204. Jamison indicated she prepares meals; washes dishes and does laundry; goes out everyday during the summer; drives a car; goes shopping; pays bills, counts change, and uses a saving account, checkbook and money orders; likes to read and watch TV; and does not need reminders to go places or someone to accompany her. Tr. 205-207. Jamison indicated that she has no problem with following instructions, using hands, completing tasks, seeing, talking, hearing, reaching, and getting along with others. Tr. 208. Jamison admitted that she could lift 20 pounds and sit for 3 to 4 hours and walk for 10 to 15 minutes.
For the reasons set forth below we will affirm the decision of the Commissioner denying Jamison's applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits.
When considering a social security appeal, we have plenary review of all legal issues decided by the Commissioner.
Substantial evidence "does not mean a large or considerable amount of evidence, but `rather such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.'"
Substantial evidence exists only "in relationship to all the other evidence in the record,"
To receive disability benefits, the plaintiff must demonstrate 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. § 432(d)(1)(A). Furthermore,
42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A).
The Commissioner utilizes a five-step process in evaluating disability insurance and supplemental security income claims.
Residual functional capacity is the individual's maximum remaining ability to do sustained work activities in an ordinary work setting on a regular and continuing basis.
The administrative law judge at step one of the sequential evaluation process found that Jamison had not engaged in substantial gainful work activity since September 2, 2008, the alleged disability onset date. Tr. 16.
At step two of the sequential evaluation process, the administrative law judge found that Jamison had the following severe impairments: "degenerative disc disease, spondylosis, osteoarthritis of the spine, degenerative joint disease of the knees and fibromyalgia."
At step three of the sequential evaluation process the administrative law judge found that Jamison's impairments did not individually or in combination meet or equal a listed impairment.
At step four of the sequential evaluation process the administrative law judge found that Jamison could not perform her prior relevant work but that she had the residual functional capacity to engage in unskilled, sedentary work with a sit/stand option. In so finding, the administrative law judge rejected the conclusory opinion of Dow Brophy, M.D., one of Jamison's treating physicians, set forth on a Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare form, that Jamison was temporarily disabled from May 22, 2008 until June 5, 2009. Tr. 307-308. He also found that the opinion of Caroline Ditter, D.C., a treating chiropractor, was not inconsistent with an ability to perform sedentary work. Tr. 19 and 542-546. The administrative law judge further found that Jamison's statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of symptoms were not credible to the extent they were inconsistent with an ability to perform a limited range of sedentary work. Tr. 18.
At step five, the administrative law judge based on a residual functional capacity of a limited range of sedentary work as described above and the testimony of a vocational expert found that Jamison had the ability to perform unskilled, sedentary work as a receptionist/information clerk, an assembler, and a surveillance systems monitor, and that there were a significant number of such jobs in the local, state and national economies. Tr. 20 and 61-63.
The administrative record in this case is 550 pages in length, primarily consisting of medical and vocational records. Jamison argues that the administrative law judge erred by rejecting the opinions of treating physicians, directing the vocational expert to assume Jamison was capable of full time work despite the limitations set forth in the chiropractor's functional assessment, rejecting Jamison's testimony as not fully credible, and failing to find that Jamison had a severe mental impairment. Jamison also argues that she meets or equals Listing 1.04, Disorders of the Spine.
We have thoroughly reviewed the record in this case and find no merit in Jamison's arguments. The administrative law judge did an adequate job of reviewing Jamison's vocational history and medical records in his decision, and the brief submitted by the Commissioner thoroughly reviews the medical and vocational evidence in this case. Tr. 14-20; Doc. 12, Brief of Defendant. Because the administrative law judge adequately reviewed the medical evidence in his decision we will only comment on a few items.
Initially we will note that the administrative law judge rejected the opinion of Dr. Brophy, Jamison's primary care physician. Dr. Brophy in a conclusory fashion indicated that Jamison was temporarily disabled. Dr. Brophy did not provide a detailed assessment of Jamison's functional abilities. We cannot conclude from Dr. Brophy's bare treatment notes that Jamison is unable to engage in the limited range of sedentary work set forth by the administrative law judge. Furthermore, since the disability onset date alleged by Jamison is September 2, 2008, the opinion of Dr. Brophy is unavailing because Dr. Brophy indicated that the disability was only expected to last until June 5, 2009, a period of less than 12 months.
In addition, Dr. Brophy observed in August and September 2008 that Jamison had a normal spinal range of motion, normal extremities with full strength, and a normal neurological examination. Tr. 260 and 263. In November 2008, Dr. Brophy found normal spinal range of motion, and no obvious instability; Jamison's extremities, hips, and knees were normal with intact motor strength and intact sensation. Tr. 323. In December, 2008, when Dr. Brophy completed the Department of Public Welfare form, Dr. Brophy indicated in medical notes that Jamison had a normal spinal range of motion and no obvious spinal instability, as well as normal extremities, hips and knees, intact motor strength, and grossly intact sensation. Tr. 320-321. Furthermore, at each of these appointments Dr. Brophy did not observe any abnormal psychiatric signs or symptoms.
During this time frame Jamison was also examined by David S. Mize, M.D., regarding abdominal pain. Tr. 280-285, 289-90 and 346-348. Dr. Mize reported no muscle or joint pain, weakness, inflammation, motion restriction, atrophy or backache, or gross neurological deficits.
A neurosurgeon, Vasantha Kumar, M.D., in May, 2009, found that Jamison was not a surgical candidate. Tr. 390-391. On physical examination of Jamison, Dr. Kumar found that Jamison had full range of neck movement, normal strength in the upper and lower extremities, intact sensation and brisk reflexes.
Also, on June 9, 2009, Jamison was examined by Mary C. Bush, M.D., regarding her pain complaints. Tr. 382-383. Dr. Bush's physical examination notes state in pertinent part as follows: "Ms. Jamison is a very pleasant 44-year-old woman, seated comfortably in a chair in the examination room in no acute distress. There are no obvious deficits in memory, speech, or cognition. Mood and affect are appropriate. Focused physical exam reveals tenderness with palpation over the lumbar facet joints. Facet loading maneuvers are generally negative. There is some mild tenderness with palpation over the right SI joint. Evaluation for fibromyalgia reveals 11 out of 18 positive tender points with three negative test points, which does technically represent a positive physical examination for fibromyalgia. Gait is slightly antalgic. Otherwise, the patient's physical exam is generally unchanged or slightly improved since prior examinations." Tr. 382. Dr. Bush recommended that Jamison treat her condition with regular exercise and Tylenol as needed. Tr. 383. She also noted that physical therapy at "Rehab Options pain rehabilitation program" would be appropriate "for [her] fibromyalgia", that the x-rays of her knees were completely normal, and that "no additional diagnostic studies or physical therapy is indicated."
As for the opinion of Dr. Brophy and the assessment of the chiropractor, the administrative law judge explained that he gave both opinions limited weight. Tr. 19. Specifically, the administrative law judge stated as follows:
Tr. 19 and 60-63.
The decision of the administrative law judge is supported by the opinion of the state agency psychologist, Joseph Kowalski, Psy.D., who found that Jamison did not have a severe mental impairment as well as by the "Medical Source Statement of Claimant's Ability to Perform Work-Related Physical Activities" completed on October 10, 2008, by Dr. Mize. Tr. 277-278. Dr. Mize indicated that Jamison had no physical limitations.
The administrative law judge appropriately considered the evidence, including the opinion of the state agency psychologist and Jamison's chiropractor. The administrative law judge's reliance on those opinions was appropriate.
Jamison also argues that the administrative law judge erred at step three of the sequential evaluation process. Jamison contends that she meets listings under section 1.04, Disorders of the Spine. Before we address the criteria/requirements of that listing we will mention some basic principles set forth in case law and the regulations of the Social Security Administration. If Jamison's severe impairments met or equaled a listed impairment, she would have been considered disabled per se and awarded disability benefits. However, a claimant has the burden of proving that his or her severe impairment or impairments meet or equal a listed impairment.
The determination of whether a claimant meets or equals a listing is a medical one. Consequently, a claimant must present medical evidence or opinion that his or her impairment meets or equals a listing. However, an administrative law judge is not required to accept a physician's opinion when that opinion is not supported by the objective medical evidence (raw data) in the record.
To meet listings under section 1.04, a claimant must have a disorder of the spine resulting in compromise of the nerve root with 1) evidence of nerve root compromise characterized by neuroanatomic distribution of pain, limitation of motion of the spine, motor loss and a positive straight leg raise (if there is lower back involvement), 2) confirmed spinal arachnoiditis, or 3) lumbar spinal stenosis with pseudoclaudication, established by imaging and manifested by chronic pain and weakness and resulting in the inability to ambulate effectively.
The administrative law judge observed Jamison testify and determined that her statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of her symptoms were not credible to the extent that they were inconsistent with the ability to perform a limited range of unskilled, sedentary work. Tr. 18. The administrative law judge was not required to accept Jamison's claims regarding her physical and mental limitations.
Our review of the administrative record reveals that the decision of the Commissioner is supported by substantial evidence. We will, therefore, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) affirm the decision of the Commissioner.
An appropriate order will be entered.
In accordance with the accompanying memorandum,
1. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in favor of the Commissioner and against Carrie L. Jamison as set forth in the following paragraph.
2. The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying Carrie L. Jamison disability insurance and supplemental security income benefits is affirmed.
3. The Clerk of Court shall close this case.
20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1567 and 416.967.
William C. Shiel, Jr., M.D., Degenerative Disc Disease and Sciatica, MedicineNet.com, http://www.medicinenet. com/degenerativedisc/page2.htm (Last accessed May 24, 2012). Degenerative disc disease is considered part of the normal aging process.
