Bates v. Astrue

• Decision Date: 20 August 2012
• Docket Number: CIVIL NO. 2:11cv361
• Parties: CAROL A. BATES, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana

CAROL A. BATES, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security Defendant.

CIVIL NO. 2:11cv361

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION

Entered: August 20, 2012

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the court for judicial review of a final decision of the defendant Commissioner of Social Security Administration denying Plaintiff's application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) as provided for in the Social Security Act. 42 U.S.C. §416(I); 42 U.S.C. §423; 42 U.S.C. §§ 1382, 1382c(a)(3). Section 205(g) of the Act provides, inter alia, "[a]s part of his answer, the [Commissioner] shall file a certified copy of the transcript of the record including the evidence upon which the findings and decision complained of are based. The court shall have the power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the [Commissioner], with or without remanding the case for a rehearing." It also provides, "[t]he findings of the [Commissioner] as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive. . . ." 42 U.S.C. §405(g).

The law provides that an applicant for disability insurance benefits must establish an "inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months. . . ." 42 U.S.C. §416(i)(1); 42 U.S.C. §423(d)(1)(A). A physical or mentalimpairment is "an impairment that results from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities which are demonstrable by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques." 42 U.S.C. §423(d)(3). It is not enough for a plaintiff to establish that an impairment exists. It must be shown that the impairment is severe enough to preclude the plaintiff from engaging in substantial gainful activity. Gotshaw v. Ribicoff, 307 F.2d 840 (7th Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 372 U.S. 945 (1963); Garcia v. Califano, 463 F.Supp. 1098 (N.D.Ill. 1979). It is well established that the burden of proving entitlement to disability insurance benefits is on the plaintiff. See Jeralds v. Richardson, 445 F.2d 36 (7th Cir. 1971); Kutchman v. Cohen, 425 F.2d 20 (7th Cir. 1970).

Given the foregoing framework, "[t]he question before [this court] is whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence to support the [Commissioner's] findings." Garfield v. Schweiker, 732 F.2d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 1984) citing Whitney v. Schweiker, 695 F.2d 784, 786 (7th Cir. 1982); 42 U.S.C. §405(g). "Substantial evidence is defined as 'more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.'" Rhoderick v. Heckler, 737 F.2d 714, 715 (7th Cir. 1984) quoting Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401, 91 S.Ct. 1410, 1427 (1971); see Allen v. Weinberger, 552 F.2d 781, 784 (7th Cir. 1977). "If the record contains such support [it] must [be] affirmed, 42 U.S.C. §405(g), unless there has been an error of law." Garfield, supra at 607; see also Schnoll v. Harris, 636 F.2d 1146, 1150 (7th Cir. 1980).

In the present matter, after consideration of the entire record, the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") made the following findings:

1. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since April 12,2007, the application date (20 CFR § 416.971 et seq).

2. The claimant has the following severe impairments: cervical disc herniation and major depression (20 CFR § 416.920(c)).

3. The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Supbart P, Appendix 1 (20 CFR §§ 416.920(d), 416.925, and 416.926).

4. After careful consideration of the entire record, I find that the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform light work as defined in 20 CFR § 416.967(b). The claimant is limited to occasionally climbing of [sic] ladders, ropes, or scaffolds. The claimant retains the ability to understand, remember, and carry out simple, routine tasks. The claimant can concentrate, persist, and work on a sustained basis. The claimant can interact appropriately with others. The claimant can tolerate ordinary job routines and changes.

5. The claimant is unable to perform any past relevant work (20 CFR § 416.965).

6. The claimant was born on September 29, 1958 and was 48 years old, which is defined as a younger individual age 18-49, on the date the application was filed. The claimant subsequently changed age category to closely approaching advanced age (20 CFR § 416.963).

7. The claimant has at least a high school education and is able to communicate in English (20 CFR §416.964).

8. Transferability of job skills is not material to the determination of disability because using the Medical-Vocational Rules as a framework supports a finding that the claimant is "not disabled," whether or not the claimant has transferable job skills (See SSR 82-41 and 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2).

9. Considering the claimant's age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity, there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that the claimant can perform (20 CFR 416.969 and 416.969(a)).

10. The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, since April 12, 2007, the date the application was filed (20 CFR § 416.920(g)).

(Tr. 16-23).

Based upon these findings, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff was not entitled to disabilityinsurance benefits. The ALJ's decision became the final agency decision when the Appeals Council denied review. This appeal followed.

Plaintiff filed her opening brief on January 2, 1012. On May 2, 2012, the defendant filed a memorandum in support of the Commissioner's decision, and on June 1, 2012, Plaintiff filed her reply. Upon full review of the record in this cause, this court is of the view that the ALJ's decision should be affirmed.

A five step test has been established to determine whether a claimant is disabled. See Singleton v. Bowen, 841 F.2d 710, 711 (7th Cir. 1988); Bowen v. Yuckert, 107 S.Ct. 2287, 2290-91 (1987). The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has summarized that test as follows:

The following steps are addressed in order: (1) Is the claimant presently unemployed? (2) Is the claimant's impairment "severe"? (3) Does the impairment meet or exceed one of a list of specific impairments? (4) Is the claimant unable to perform his or her former occupation? (5) Is the claimant unable to perform any other work within the economy? An affirmative answer leads either to the next step or, on steps 3 and 5, to a finding that the claimant is disabled. A negative answer at any point, other than step 3, stops the inquiry and leads to a determination that the claimant is not disabled.

Nelson v. Bowen, 855 F.2d 503, 504 n.2 (7th Cir. 1988); Zalewski v. Heckler, 760 F.2d 160, 162n.2 (7th Cir. 1985); accord Halvorsen v. Heckler, 743 F.2d 1221 (7th Cir. 1984). From the nature of the ALJ's decision to deny benefits, it is clear that step five was the determinative inquiry.

Plaintiff filed an application for Supplemental Security Income on April 25, 2007, alleging disability beginning on February 19, 2004. (Tr. 113-19.) Her claim was denied initially on August 21, 2007, and upon reconsideration was denied on February 29, 2008. (Tr. 58-59.)Plaintiff requested a hearing, which was heard by Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") Sherry Thompson on April 6, 2010. (Tr. 29-55.) The ALJ issued a written decision denying benefits on June 21, 2010. (Tr. 11-28.) Plaintiff requested review by the Appeals Council, but was denied on July 26, 2011, leaving the ALJ's decision as the final decision of the Commissioner. (Tr. 1-4.)

As of the date of the hearing, Plaintiff was 51 years old. (Tr. 33.) Plaintiff was diagnosed with degenerative disc disease, herniations in her cervical spine, and cervical radiculopathy. (Tr. 211, 233, 254, 262, 291, 339, 348, 423.) The herniations and the accompanying radiculopathy were caused by a motor vehicle accident in 2004. (Tr. 240, 250, 278, 348, 354.) MRI imaging demonstrated disc bulging at the L5-S1, L4-L5, and L3-L4 levels and herniation at the C6-C7 level. (Tr. 278, 282, 291, 354, 358, 470.) These impairments caused constant severe pain that Plaintiff described as "stabbing" or "aching" and radiated into her arms and legs, causing tingling and numbness in addition to the pain. (Tr. 211, 243, 253, 260, 369, 400, 508.) She rated her pain as a minimum of 7 or 8 out of 10 and as high as a 10 out of 10 on a pain scale. (Tr. 44-45, 228, 268, 423, 454.) This pain in her back, legs, and arms limited Plaintiff's ability to sit or stand for more than 20 minutes at a time, walk more than 2 blocks, kept her from sitting still, sleeping, and prevented her from getting out of a chair, bending, or crouching. (Tr. 38, 41, 167, 334, 463, 477.) She sought to resolve her pain through painkillers, muscle relaxers, epidural injections, physical therapy, and a TENS unit1, but these treatments did not alleviate her pain. (Tr. 38, 44-45, 232, 324, 326, 358, 394, 463, 508.) Her prescribed medications caused drowsiness during the day and weight gain of approximately 70 pounds over four years. (Tr. 36-37, 191, 383-85.)

Plaintiff was diagnosed with a ganglion cyst on her right hand near her thumb. (Tr. 39,450, 452, 470.) This cyst caused swelling and pain in her wrist and hand, was painful when bumped, and limited the amount of writing or typing she was able to perform. (Tr. 39-40, 247, 249, 253, 404-05, 450, 452, 470, 520-21.) Plaintiff was diagnosed with major depression, with GAF scores recorded as low as 42 and as high as 55. (Tr. 446, 477, 483-89, 526.) Her depression affected her ability to concentrate on tasks, caused her to be forgetful, made thinking straight and interpersonal...