Bettis v. Astrue, Civil No. SKG-12-826
| Decision Date | 22 March 2013 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. SKG-12-826 |
| Parties | Re: Nicole Bettis v. Commissioner Michael J. Astrue |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
SUSAN K. GAUVEY
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Paul Rodney Schlitz, Jr., Esq.
Mering and Schlitz LLC
Alex S. Gordon, Esq.
Office of the United States Attorney
Dear Counsel:
Plaintiff, Nicole A. Bettis, by her attorney, Paul R. Schlitz, Jr., filed this action seeking judicial review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("the Commissioner"), who denied her claim for Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB") and Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") under sections 205(g) and 1631(c)(3) of the Social Security Act ("the Act"). This case has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Local Rule 301. No hearing is necessary. Local Rule 105.6.
Currently pending before the Court are cross motions for summary judgment and plaintiff's request for remand in the alternative. The Court acknowledges that this young woman has a serious psychiatric history and sympathizes with her and her family in their attempts to address her conditions with its related challenges. However, the Court has concluded that under the applicable law, she is not entitled to disability. For the reasons that follow, the Court hereby DENIES plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, GRANTS defendant's motion for summary judgment, and AFFIRMS the decision of the ALJ.
On June 25, 2009, plaintiff applied for DIB and SSI benefits, alleging that she had become unable to work beginning October 3, 2007 due to depression and anxiety. (R. 14, 132).
On November 20, 2009, plaintiff's applications for DIB and SSI were denied at both the initial and reconsideration levels. (R. 57-64, 67-70). Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a request for a hearing by an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"). (R. 71-73). An administrative hearing was held on March 24, 2011 before ALJ Melvin G. Olmscheid. (R. 25). On May 4, 2011, the ALJ issued an unfavorable written decision that plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the Act. (R. 14-24).
The Appeals Council denied plaintiff's request for review, making the ALJ's decision the final decision of the agency.(R.1). Plaintiff now seeks review of that decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
The Court has reviewed the Commissioner's Statement of Facts and, finding that it accurately represents the record in all material respects, hereby adopts it.
In reviewing a claimant's eligibility for DIB and SSI, an ALJ must consider all of the evidence in the record and follow the sequential five-step analysis set forth in the regulations to determine whether the claimant is disabled as defined by the Act. 20 C.F.R § 416.920(a).1 If the agency can make a disability determination at any point in the sequential analysis, it does not review the claim further. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). After proceeding through each of the required steps, the ALJ in this case concluded that Ms. Bettis was not disabled as defined by the Act. (R. 14).
At the first step, the claimant must prove that he or she is not engaged in "substantial gainful activity."2 20 C.F.R. §416.920(a)(4)(i). If the ALJ finds that the claimant is engaged in "substantial gainful activity," he or she will not be considered disabled. Id. Here, the ALJ found that Ms. Bettis' earnings in 2007, 2008, and 2009 do not qualify as substantial gainful activity (R. 16). He therefore concluded that Ms. Bettis "has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since October 3, 2007, the alleged onset date." (R. 16).
At the second step, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has a severe, medically determinable impairment or a combination of impairments that limit her ability to perform basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1521, 416.921. In addition, there is a durational requirement that the claimant's impairment last or be expected to last for at least 12 months. 20 C.F.R. § 416.909. Here, the ALJ found that Ms. Bettis' bipolar disorder, anxiety, and substance abuse were severe impairments due to their more than minimal limitation on Ms. Bettis' ability to perform basic work activities. (R. 16).
At the third step, the ALJ considers whether the claimant's impairments, either individually or in combination, meet or equal an impairment enumerated in the "Listing of Impairments" in 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. 20 C.F.R. §416.920(a)(4)(iii). If one of the Listings is met, disability will be found without consideration of age, education, or work experience. 20 C.F.R. § § 404.1520(d), 416.920(d). Here, the ALJ found that Ms. Bettis' does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meet or equal an impairment enumerated in the "Listing of Impairments." (R. 17).
More specifically, the ALJ reviewed Listings 12.04 (affective disorder) and 12.09 (substance abuse disorder). (R. 17). In order to meet Listing 12.04, the claimant must meet the requirements in either both "paragraph A" and "paragraph B" or "paragraph C" alone. 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. To satisfy "paragraph A" criteria, the claimant must show medically documented persistence of depressive syndrome, manic syndrome, or bipolar syndrome. Id. To satisfy "paragraph B" criteria, the claimant must show at least two of the following criteria: marked restriction of activities of daily living, marked difficulties in maintaining social functioning, marked difficulties in maintaining concentration, persistence, or pace, or repeated episodes of decompensation of extended duration. Id. Where a "marked" level is required, it means more than moderate but less than extreme. Id.
The ALJ found that Ms. Bettis did not satisfy "paragraph B" requirements because her mental impairments did not result in marked limitations or in repeated episodes of decompensation.(R. 18). The ALJ found that Ms. Bettis has only mild restriction in activities of daily living due to her ability to function independently and her ability to meet her personal needs from a mental and cognitive standpoint; the ALJ noted that the State psychologist agreed with this conclusion. (R. 17). The ALJ found that Ms. Bettis has moderate difficulties in social functioning because, although she does not participate in organized activities, she is able to relate to others, demonstrate socially acceptable behavior, and visit a former girlfriend and a long-time friend once or twice a week. (R. 17). The ALJ additionally concluded that Ms. Bettis has moderate difficulties in concentration, persistence or pace, because, although she has difficulties in concentration, she is able to understand simple and complex instructions, would not be a distraction to coworkers, keeps a journal and reads. (R. 17-18). Moreover, the ALJ found that Ms. Bettis experienced only one to two episodes of decompensation of extended duration. (R. 18).
To satisfy "paragraph C" criteria, the claimant must show a medically documented history of the affective disorder of at least two years that has caused more than minimal limitation of ability to do basic work activities, "with symptoms or signs currently attenuated by treatment or psychosocial support." 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. In addition, the claimant must show at least one of the following: repeated episodes ofdecompensation of extended duration, a disease process that indicates that even a minimal increase in mental demands or change in environment would be predicted to cause the individual to decompensate, or a current history of an inability to function outside of a highly supportive living arrangement. Id.
The ALJ concluded that Ms. Bettis did not satisfy "paragraph C" requirements. (R. 18). The ALJ found that the record was devoid of evidence that established repeated episodes of decompensation, potential episodes of decompensation, or Ms. Bettis' inability to function outside of a highly supportive environment. (R. 18).
In order to meet Listing 12.09, the claimant must show behavioral or physical changes that are associated with regular use of substances that affect the central nervous system. 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. In order to reach the required level of severity associated with substance addiction, the claimant must meet the requirements of any of the following disorders: organic mental disorder (to be evaluated under listing 12.02); depressive syndrome (to be evaluated under listing 12.04); anxiety disorder (to be evaluated under listing 12.06); personality disorder (to be evaluated under listing 12.08); peripheral neuropathy (to be evaluated under listing 11.14); liver damage (to be evaluated under listing 5.05); gastritis (to be evaluated under listing 5.00); pancreatitis (tobe evaluated under listing 5.08); or seizures (to be evaluated under listings 11.02 or 11.03). Id.
The ALJ determined that Ms. Bettis' condition does not meet or medically equal the criteria of Listing 12.09 when he determined that she did not meet Listing 12.04. (R. 17).
Before an ALJ advances to the fourth step of the sequential analysis, she must assess the claimant's "residual functional capacity" ("RFC"), which is then used at the fourth and fifth steps of the analysis. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). RFC is an assessment of an individual's ability to do sustained work-related physical and mental activities in a work setting on a regular and continuing basis. Social Security Ruling (SSR) 96-8p. The ALJ must consider even those impairments that are not "severe." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2).
In determining a claimant's RFC, ALJs evaluate the claimant's subjective symptoms, such as allegations of pain, using a two-part test. Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 594 (4th Cir. 1996); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. First, the ALJ must determine whether objective evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial