Barnett v. Astrue
| Decision Date | 10 January 2012 |
| Docket Number | Case No.: 3:10-cv-1316 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia |
| Parties | PHILIP DEAN BARNETT, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant. |
This is an action seeking review of the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (hereinafter the "Commissioner") denying Claimant's application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits ("DIB") under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 401-433. (Docket No. 2). Both parties have consented in writing to a decision by the United States Magistrate Judge. (Docket Nos. 11 and 12). The case is presently pending before the Court on the parties' cross motions for judgment on the pleadings as articulated in their briefs. (Docket Nos. 10 and 15).
The Court has fully considered the evidence and the arguments of counsel. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that the decision of the Commissioner is supported by substantial evidence and should be affirmed.
Plaintiff, Philip Dean Barnett (hereinafter "Claimant), filed an application for DIB benefits on August 15, 2007, alleging a disability onset date of September 30, 2006due to diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, right wrist pain, depression, and anxiety. (Tr. at 111-15, 125). The Social Security Administration (hereinafter "SSA") denied the application initially on September 4, 2007 and again on reconsideration. (Tr. at 61-70). Thereafter, Claimant requested a hearing before an administrative law judge (hereinafter "ALJ"). (Tr. at 71-76). The Honorable Andrew J. Chwalibog, ALJ, presided over Claimant's hearing on March 1, 2010. (Tr. at 24-48). The ALJ denied Claimant's application by decision dated March 30, 2010. (Tr. at 8-23). The ALJ's decision became the final decision of the Commissioner on September 17, 2010 when the Appeals Council denied Claimant's request for review. (Tr. at 1-5). Claimant timely filed the present civil action seeking judicial review of the administrative decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §405(g). (Docket No. 2). The Commissioner filed an Answer and a Transcript of the Administrative Proceedings, and both parties filed their Briefs in Support of Judgment on the Pleadings. (Docket Nos. 7, 8, 10, and 15). Consequently, the matter is ripe for resolution.
Under 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5), a claimant seeking disability benefits has the burden of proving a disability. See Blalock v. Richardson, 483 F.2d 773, 774 (4th Cir. 1972). A disability is defined as the "inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable impairment which can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months." 42 U.S.C. 423(d)(1)(A).
The Social Security regulations establish a five step sequential evaluation process for the adjudication of disability claims. If an individual is found "not disabled" at any step of the process, further inquiry is unnecessary and benefits are denied. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. The first step in the sequence is determining whether a claimant is currentlyengaged in substantial gainful employment. Id. § 404.1520(b). If the claimant is not, then the second step requires a determination of whether the claimant suffers from a severe impairment. Id. § 404.1520(c). If severe impairment is present, the third inquiry is whether this impairment meets or equals any of the impairments listed in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of the Administrative Regulations No. 4. (the "'Listing") Id. § 404.1520(d). If the impairment does, then the claimant is found disabled and awarded benefits.
However, if the impairment does not, the adjudicator must determine the claimant's residual functional capacity ("RFC"), which is the measure of the claimant's ability to engage in substantial gainful activity despite the limitations of his or her impairments. Id. § 404.1520(e). After making this determination, the next step is to ascertain whether the claimant's impairment prevents the performance of past relevant work. Id. § 404.1520(f). If the impairment does prevent the performance of past relevant work, then the claimant has established a prima facie case of disability, and the burden shifts to the Commissioner to prove, as the final step in the process, that the claimant is able to perform other forms of substantial gainful activity, when considering the claimant's remaining physical and mental capacities, age, education, and prior work experiences. Id. § 404.1520(g); see also McLain v. Schweiker, 715 F.2d 866, 868-69 (4th Cir. 1983). The Commissioner must establish two things: (1) that the claimant, considering his or her age, education, skills, work experience, and physical shortcomings has the capacity to perform an alternative job, and (2) that this specific job exists in significant numbers in the national economy. McLamore v. Weinberger, 538 F.2d. 572, 574 (4th Cir. 1976).
When a claimant alleges a mental impairment, the SSA "must follow a special technique at every level in the administrative review." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a. First, theSSA evaluates the claimant's pertinent signs, symptoms, and laboratory results to determine whether the claimant has a medically determinable mental impairment. If such impairment exists, the SSA documents its findings. Second, the SSA rates and documents the degree of functional limitation resulting from the impairment according to criteria specified in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a(c). That section provides as follows:
Third, after rating the degree of functional limitation from the claimant's impairment, the SSA determines the severity of the limitation. 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 result in a finding that the impairment is not severe unless the evidence indicates that there is more than minimal limitation in the claimant's ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a(d)(1).
Next, if the claimant's impairment is deemed severe, the SSA compares the medical findings about the severe impairment and the rating and degree and functional limitation to the criteria of the appropriate listed mental disorder to determine if the severe impairment meets or is equal to a listed mental disorder. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a(d)(2). Finally, if the SSA finds that the claimant has a severe mental impairment, which neither meets nor equals a listed mental disorder, the SSA assesses the claimant's residual function. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a(d)(3). The regulation further specifies how the findings and conclusion reached in applying the technique must be documented at the ALJ and Appeals Council levels as follows:
At the administrative law judge hearing and the Appeals Council levels, the written decision issued by the administrative law judge and the Appeals Council must incorporate the pertinent findings and conclusion based on the technique. The decision must show the significant history, including examination and laboratory findings, the functional limitations that were considered in reaching a conclusion about the severity of the mental impairment(s). The decision must include a specific finding as to the degree of limitation in each functional areas described in paragraph (c) of this section.
In the present case, at the first step of the sequential evaluation, the ALJ found that Claimant had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since September 30, 2006,the date of the alleged onset of disability. (Tr. at 13, Finding No. 2). Turning to the second step of the evaluation, the ALJ determined that Claimant's diabetes mellitus was a severe impairment. (Tr. at 13, Finding No. 3). The ALJ further concluded that Claimant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial