Bays v. Colvin, Case No.: 2:14-cv-01564
| Decision Date | 30 January 2015 |
| Docket Number | Case No.: 2:14-cv-01564 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia |
| Parties | EDWARD EUGENE BAYS, JR., Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. |
This action seeks a review of the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (hereinafter "Commissioner") denying Plaintiff's applications for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits ("DIB") and supplemental security income ("SSI") under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-433, 1381-1383f. The matter is assigned to the Honorable Thomas E. Johnston, United States District Judge, and was referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge by standing order for submission of proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Presently pending before the Court are Plaintiff's brief requesting judgment on the pleadings and the Commissioner's brief in support of her decision requesting judgment in her favor. (ECF Nos. 12 & 13).
The undersigned has fully considered the evidence and the arguments ofcounsel. For the following reasons, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's request for judgment on the pleadings be DENIED, the Commissioner's request for judgment on the pleadings be GRANTED, the Commissioner's decision be AFFIRMED, and that this case be DISMISSED and removed from the docket of the Court.
On March 6, 2011 and May 16, 2011, Plaintiff Edward Eugene Bays, Jr., ("Claimant"), filed applications for DIB and SSI, respectively, alleging a disability onset date of June 15, 2010, (Tr. at 149, 152), due to "back injury, leg numbness, and nerve damage." (Tr. at 189). The Social Security Administration ("SSA") denied Claimant's applications initially and upon reconsideration. (Tr. at 60, 71, 83, 87). Claimant then filed a request for an administrative hearing, (Tr. at 104), which was held on October 3, 2012 before the Honorable William Paxton, Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"). (Tr. at 29-53). By written decision dated October 12, 2012, the ALJ found that Claimant was not disabled as defined in the Social Security Act. (Tr. at 12-22). The ALJ's decision became the final decision of the Commissioner on November 18, 2013, when the Appeals Council denied Claimant's request for review. (Tr. at 1-4).
Claimant timely filed the present civil action seeking judicial review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (ECF No. 2). The Commissioner subsequently filed an Answer opposing Claimant's complaint and a Transcript of the Administrative Proceedings. (ECF Nos. 8 & 9). Claimant filed a Brief in Support of Judgment on the Pleadings, (ECF No. 12), and the Commissioner then filed a Brief in Support of Defendant's Decision, (ECF No. 13), to which Claimant filed a reply. (ECF No. 14). Consequently, the matter is fully briefed and ready for resolution.
Claimant was 45 years old at the time that he filed the instant applications for benefits, and 46 years old on the date of the ALJ's decision. (Tr. at 20, 149, 152). He has a ninth grade education and communicates in English. (Tr. at 20, 32). Claimant has previously worked as a truck driver, ATM machine servicer, and alarm technician wire installer. (Tr. at 20, 35-36, 204-11).
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, 775 (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 has lasted or 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(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4). The first step in the sequence is determining whether a claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful employment. Id. §§ 404.1520(b), 416.920(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), 416.920(c). A severe impairment is one that "significantly limits [a claimant's] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities." Id. 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 Pof the Administrative Regulations No. 4 (the "Listing"). Id. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d). If so, then the claimant is found disabled and awarded benefits.
However, if the impairment does not meet or equal a listed impairment, the adjudicator must assess 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), 416.920(e). After making this determination, the fourth step is to ascertain whether the claimant's impairments prevent the performance of past relevant work. Id. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f). If the impairments do 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 demonstrate, in the fifth and final step of the process, that the claimant is able to perform other forms of substantial gainful activity, given the claimant's remaining physical and mental capacities, age, education, and prior work experiences. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g), 416.920(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).
Here, the ALJ determined as a preliminary matter that Claimant met the insured status for disability insurance benefits through September 30, 2010. (Tr. at 14, Finding No. 1). At the first step of the sequential evaluation, the ALJ confirmed that Claimant had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since June 15, 2010, the alleged disability onset date. (Tr. at 14, Finding No. 2). At the second step of theevaluation, the ALJ found that Claimant had the following severe impairments: "lumbar disc disease, lumbar radiculopathy, and right tibial and peroneal neuropathy." (Tr. at 14-16, Finding No. 3). The ALJ also considered Claimant's other impairments, including a history of hemoptysis, carpal tunnel syndrome in the right hand, hypertension, and depression. (Tr. at 15). However, he found that these impairments were non-severe. (Id.)
Under the third inquiry, the ALJ found that Claimant did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled any of the impairments contained in the Listing. (Tr. at 16, Finding No. 4). Accordingly, he determined that Claimant possessed:
[T]he residual functional capacity to perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b) except the claimant is limited to standing and walking a total of three hours in an eight-hour day. The claimant can never perform climbing of ladders, ropes, or scaffolds, or crawling, and can occasionally perform stooping, crouching, kneeling, and climbing of ramps and stairs. He must avoid concentrated exposure to extreme cold, vibration, and hazards, such as heights and machinery. He would need a sit/stand option, and can stand for fifteen minutes without interruption and sit for thirty minutes without interruption.
(Tr. at 17-20, Finding No. 5). At the fourth step, the ALJ determined that Claimant was unable to perform any past relevant work. (Tr. at 20, Finding No. 6). Under the fifth and final inquiry, the ALJ reviewed Claimant's past work experience, age, and education in combination with his RFC to determine his ability to engage in substantial gainful activity. (Tr. at 20-21, Finding Nos. 6-10). The ALJ considered that (1) Claimant was born in 1966, and was defined as a younger individual age 18-49; (2) he had a limited education and could communicate in English; and (3) transferability of job skills was not an issue because using the Medical-Vocational Rules as a framework supported a finding that the Claimant is "not disabled,"whether or not the Claimant had transferable job skills. (Tr. at 20, Finding Nos. 7-9). Given these factors, Claimant's RFC, and the testimony of a vocational expert, the ALJ determined that Claimant could perform jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy, (Tr. at 20-21, Finding No. 10), including work as a rental clerk in a storage facility and mail sorter at the light exertional level, and document preparer at the sedentary exertional level. (Tr. at 21). Therefore, the ALJ concluded that Claimant was not disabled as defined in the Social Security Act, and thus was not entitled to benefits. (Tr. at 21-22, Finding No. 11).
Claimant raises a single challenge to the Commissioner's decision. Specifically, he insists that the ALJ incorrectly assigned greater weight to the opinion of a non-examining medical source, Fulvio Franyutti, M.D., than to the opinion of Claimant's treating physician, Michael Shramowiat, M.D. (ECF No. 12 at 6, 8-10). Claimant particularly takes issue with the ALJ's rejection of Dr. Shramowiat's opinion that he could only sit for a total of four hours in an eight-hour workday. (Id. at 8). In rejecting this...
To continue reading
Request your trial