R. CLARKE VanDERVORT, Magistrate Judge.
This is an action seeking review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying the Plaintiff's application for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB), under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-433. By Standing Order entered August 13, 2014 (Document No. 3.), this case was referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge to consider the pleadings and evidence, and to submit Proposed Findings of Fact and Recommendation for disposition, all pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Presently pending before the Court are the parties' cross-Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings. (Document Nos. 9 and 10.)
The Plaintiff, Charles E. Fizer, Jr., (hereinafter referred to as "Claimant"), filed an application for DIB on June 11, 2012 (protective filing date),
Under 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5) and § 1382c(a)(3)(H)(I), a claimant for disability benefits has the burden of proving a disability.
The Social Security Regulations establish a "sequential evaluation" for the adjudication of disability claims. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920 (2014). If an individual is found "not disabled" at any step, further inquiry is unnecessary.
When a claimant alleges a mental impairment, the Social Security Administration "must follow a special technique at every level in the administrative review process." 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520a(a) and 416.920a(a). First, the SSA evaluates the claimant's pertinent symptoms, signs and laboratory findings to determine whether the claimant has a medically determinable mental impairment and documents its findings if the claimant is determined to have such an impairment. Second, the SSA rates and documents the degree of functional limitation resulting from the impairment according to criteria as specified in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520a(c) and 416.920a(c). Those sections provide as follows:
Third, after rating the degree of functional limitation from the claimant's impairment(s), the SSA determines their severity. A rating of "none" or "mild" in the first three functional areas (activities of daily living, social functioning; and concentration, persistence, or pace) and "none" in the fourth (episodes of decompensation) will yield a finding that the impairment(s) is/are not severe unless evidence indicates more than minimal limitation in the claimant's ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520a(d)(1) and 416.920a(d)(1).
20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520a(e)(2) and 416.920a(e)(2).
In this particular case, the ALJ determined that Claimant satisfied the first inquiry because he had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset date, May 31, 2012. (Tr. at 10, Finding No. 2.) Under the second inquiry, the ALJ found that Claimant suffered from "obesity, degenerative disc disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, degenerative joint disease, depression, and alcohol abuse," which were severe impairments. (Tr. at 10, Finding No. 3.) At the third inquiry, the ALJ concluded that Claimant's impairments did not meet or equal the level of severity of any listing in Appendix 1. (Tr. at 12, Finding No. 4.) The ALJ then found that Claimant had the residual functional capacity for medium work, as follows:
(Tr. at 13, Finding No. 5.) At step four, the ALJ found that Claimant was unable to perform his past relevant work. (Tr. at 17, Finding No. 6.) On the basis of testimony of a Vocational Expert ("VE") taken at the administrative hearing, the ALJ concluded that Claimant could perform jobs such as an inspector, a hand packer, and a machine operator, at the unskilled, medium level of exertion. (Tr. at 18-19, Finding No. 10.) On this basis, benefits were denied. (Tr. at 19, Finding No. 11.)
The sole issue before this Court is whether the final decision of the Commissioner denying the claim is supported by substantial evidence. In
A careful review of the record reveals the decision of the Commissioner is supported by substantial evidence.
Claimant was born on September 7, 1953, and was 60 years old at the time of the administrative hearing on January 24, 2014. (Tr. at 18, 172.) The ALJ found that Claimant had at least a high school education and was able to communicate in English. (Tr. at 18, 184, 186.) In the past, he worked as a municipal maintenance worker. (Tr. at 18, 186, 215-22.)
The Court has considered all evidence of record, including the medical evidence and will summarize it and discuss it below in relation to Claimant's arguments.
Claimant alleges that the Commissioner's decision is not supported by substantial evidence because the ALJ erred in his duty to develop the medical evidence regarding Claimant's lumbar pain, cervical pain, hypertension, ear pain/hearing loss, depression, obesity, and erectile dysfunction. (Document No. 9 at 9-11.) He asserts that the ALJ failed to develop the evidence as it related to Claimant's extensive complaints, pain, discomfort, and limitations. (
In response, the Commissioner asserts that Claimant inappropriately relies, in part, on the findings of Dr. Guberman, which related to a previously-adjudicated application. (Document No. 12 at 7.) The Commissioner further asserts that Claimant fails to recognize that the burden of establishing disability remained with him. (
Claimant also alleges that the Commissioner's decision is not supported by substantial evidence because the ALJ failed to consider and evaluate properly the combination of his impairments. (Document No. 9 at 11-12.) Claimant asserts that even a cursory review of the record demonstrates that Claimant's physical and mental impairments, when combined, totally disabled him. (
In response, the Commissioner asserts that the ALJ comprehensively discussed Claimant's impairments in combination. (Document No. 12 at 9-10.) The Commissioner notes that two state agency physicians opined that Claimant was capable of performing a limited range of medium work, and that two state agency psychologists opined that Claimant had no limitations resulting from his psychological impairments. (
Claimant alleges that the ALJ erred when she failed to develop the record regarding his severe impairments as they relate to his complaints of injuries, pain, discomfort, and limitations. (Document No. 9 at 9-10.) Although an ALJ does have a responsibility to help develop the evidence, it is Claimant's responsibility to prove to the Commissioner that he is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1512(a), (d); 416.912(a), (d) (2014).
Claimant fails to indicate what he suspects additional evidence would demonstrate. Rather, he relies in part, on an opinion that pre-dates the relevant period, and asserts that the ALJ ignored the findings and opinions of his treating physicians, Drs. Wild and Beard. Contrary to Claimant's allegation, the ALJ however, summarized Claimant's treatment with Dr. Beard, including his examination findings. (Tr. at 15-17.) Although Dr. Beard did not provide a RFC assessment, the ALJ accorded great weight to Dr. Beard's examination. (Tr. at 18.) Similarly, the ALJ summarized Dr. Wild's opinion and gave it little weight because the record as a whole did not support his extreme limitations. (Tr. at 18.) Thus, without more, the undersigned finds Claimant's arguments regarding the findings and opinions of Drs. Beard and Wild unpersuasive.
In the absence of Claimant's identification of further evidence regarding his physical impairments, the Court finds that the ALJ did not breach his "duty to investigate the facts and develop the arguments both for and against granting benefits."
Claimant also alleges that the ALJ erred in failing to assess Claimant's impairments in combination. (Document No. 9 at 11-12.) The Social Security Regulations provide as follows:
20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1523; 416.923 (2014). When there is a combination of impairments, the issue "is not only the existence of the problems, but also the degree of their severity, and whether, together, they impaired the claimant's ability to engage in substantial gainful activity."
The Claimant fails to point to any specific portion of the record or any specific evidence demonstrating that the ALJ failed to consider the severity of his impairments in combination and "fractionalized" the impairments. The ALJ specifically noted the requirements of the Regulations with regard to considering impairments in combination. (Tr. at 8, 9-10, 12,) The ALJ then discussed Claimant's impairments, finding that his obesity, degenerative disc disease, COPD, degenerative joint disease, depression, and alcohol abuse, were severe impairments. (Tr. at 10.) The ALJ specifically found, however, that the record did not reflect that Claimant had "an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 CFR 404.1520(d), 404.1525, 404.1526, 416.920(d), 416.925 and 416.926)." (Tr. at 12.) Further, the ALJ considered and accounted for Claimant's various impairments in determining Claimant's residual functional capacity, limiting him to medium work, with postural limitations to include no climbing of ladders, ropes, and scaffolds, and frequently climbing ramps and stairs, balancing, stooping, kneeling, and crouching. (Tr. at 13.) The ALJ also assessed environmental limitations, limitations in pushing/pulling with all extremities, and limitations accommodating his mental impairments. (
Upon review of the evidence of record and the ALJ's decision, the undersigned finds that the ALJ's consideration of Claimant's impairments is consistent with all applicable standards and Regulations, and his conclusions are supported by substantial evidence. The undersigned further finds that Claimant's arguments therefore, are without merit.
For the reasons set forth above, it is hereby respectfully
The parties are notified that this Proposed Findings and Recommendation is hereby
Failure to file written objections as set forth above shall constitute a waiver of de novo review by the District Court and a waiver of appellate review by the Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Clerk is directed to file this Proposed Findings and Recommendation and to send a copy of the same to counsel of record.
It is nevertheless Claimant's responsibility to prove to the Commissioner that she is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1512(a), 416.912(a) (2014) (stating that "in general, you have to prove to us that you are blind or disabled. This means that you must furnish medical and other evidence that we can use to reach conclusions about your medical impairment(s).") Thus, the claimant is responsible for providing medical evidence to the Commissioner showing that she has an impairment. Id. §§ 404.1512(c), 416.912(c). The Regulations provide that: "You must provide medical evidence showing that you have an impairment(s) and how severe it is during the time you say that you are disabled." §§ 404.1512 (c); 416.912(c)(2014). In Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 107 S.Ct. 2287, 96 L.Ed.2d 119 (1987), the Supreme Court noted:
Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. at 146, n. 5; 107 S.Ct. at 2294, n. 5 (1987). Thus, although the ALJ has a duty to develop the record fully and fairly, he is not required to act as the claimant's counsel. Clark v. Shalala, 28 F.3d 828, 830-31 (8th Cir. 1994). Claimant bears the burden of establishing a prima facie entitlement to benefits. See Hall v. Harris, 658 F.2d 260, 264-65 (4th Cir. 1981); 42 U.S.C.A. § 423(d)(5)(A)("An individual shall not be considered to be under a disability unless he furnishes such medical and other evidence of the existence thereof as the Commissioner of Social Security may require.") Similarly, Claimant "bears the risk of non-persuasion." Seacrist v. Weinberger, 538 F.2d 1054, 1056 (4th Cir. 1976).