Beytes v. Berryhill

• Decision Date: 17 January 2019
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 8:18-cv-00297-CMC-JDA
• Parties: Susan Stoehr Beytes, Plaintiff, v. Nancy A. Berryhill, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina

Susan Stoehr Beytes, Plaintiff, v. Nancy A. Berryhill, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 8:18-cv-00297-CMC-JDA

DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION

January 17, 2019

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter is before the Court for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(a), D.S.C., and 28 U.S.C. § 636.¹ Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) to obtain judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("the Commissioner"), denying Plaintiff's claim for supplemental security income ("SSI").² For the reasons set forth below, it is recommended that the decision of the Commissioner be reversed and remanded for administrative action consistent with this recommendation, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In May 2014, Plaintiff filed an application for SSI, alleging an onset of disability date of March 1, 2014. [R. 182-88.] The claim was denied initially and on reconsideration bythe Social Security Administration ("the Administration"). [R. 91-95; 100-104]. Plaintiff requested a hearing before an administrative law judge ("ALJ"), and on October 27, 2016, ALJ Amy Benton conducted a de novo hearing on Plaintiff's claims. [R. 41-59.]

The ALJ issued a decision on February 24, 2017, finding Plaintiff not disabled under the Social Security Act ("the Act"). [R. 19-34.] At Step 1,³ the ALJ found Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since May 8, 2014, the application date. [R. 21, Finding 1.] At Step 2, the ALJ found Plaintiff had severe impairments of degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, chronic pain syndrome, depression, anxiety and bipolar disorder. [R. 21, Finding 2.] At Step 3, the ALJ found Plaintiff did not have 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. [R. 21, Finding 3.]

Before addressing Step 4, Plaintiff's ability to perform her past relevant work, the ALJ assessed Plaintiff's residual functional capacity ("RFC") and found as follows:

I find that the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 416.967(b) except the claimant (1) can occasionally climb stairs and ramps; (2) can never climb ladders and scaffolds; (3) can occasionally balance, stoop, kneel, crouch and crawl; and ( 4) avoid concentrated exposure to hazards such as unprotected heights and moving mechanical parts. Further, the claimant can (1) understand, remember and carry out simple instructions; (2) have occasional interaction with supervisors; (3) have incidental interaction with coworkers; ( 4) have no interaction with the public; (5) only make simple, work-related decisions; and (6) only tolerate occasional change in work location.

[R. 24, Finding 4.] At Step 4, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff is unable to perform any past relevant work. [R. 32, Finding 5.] The ALJ further found that Plaintiff was 38 years old, which is defined as a younger individual age 18-49, on the date the application was filed, that Plaintiff had at least a high school education and is able to communicate in English, and that the transferability of job skills is not material to the determination of disability. [R. 32, Findings 6, 7, and 8.] The ALJ then determined that, based on Plaintiff's age, education, RFC, and the testimony of a vocational expert ("VE"), there were jobs that existed in significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform. [R. 32, Finding 9.] Accordingly, the ALJ concluded Plaintiff had not been under a disability, as defined in the Act, since May 8, 2014, the date the application was filed. [R. 33, Finding 10.]

Plaintiff requested Appeals Council review of the ALJ's decision, but the Council declined review. [R. 1-7.] Plaintiff filed the instant action for judicial review on February 2, 2018. [Doc. 1.]

THE PARTIES' POSITIONS

Plaintiff contends that the ALJ committed error and asks that decision be remanded for an award of benefits or, in the alternative, for further administrative proceedings. [See Doc. 18 at 2.] Specifically, Plaintiff argues the ALJ failed to adequately consider her impairments under Listing 1.04A [id. at 14-17]; failed to account for Plaintiff's moderate difficulties in concentration, persistence, and pace in the RFC [id. at 18-21]; failed to properly assess the medical source opinion evidence from Drs. John Whitley ("Dr. Whitley") and Robyn Fallaw ("Dr. Fallaw") [id. at 21-29]; and failed to adequately consider Plaintiff'slack of insurance benefits in assessing her symptomology and treatment in accordance with SSR 16-3p [id. at 30-31].

The Commissioner, on the other hand, contends the ALJ's decision is entitled to deference and that the decision should be affirmed. [See, Doc. 20 at 2.] The Commissioner argues the ALJ reasonably concluded that Plaintiff's spine impairment did not meet or medically equal the criteria of Listing 1.04(A) [id. at 12-14]; reasonably accounted for Plaintiff's moderate concentration, persistence, and pace difficulties in the RFC [id. at 14-17]; properly weighed the opinion evidence [id. at 17-26]; and properly considered Plaintiff's subject complaints in accordance with the factors outlined in the Commissioner' regulations [id. at 26-29].

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Commissioner's findings of fact are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla—i.e., the evidence must do more than merely create a suspicion of the existence of a fact and must include such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support the conclusion. See Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) (quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)); Laws v. Celebrezze, 368 F.2d 640, 642 (4th Cir. 1966) (citing Woolridge v. Celebrezze, 214 F. Supp. 686, 687 (S.D.W. Va. 1963)) ("Substantial evidence, it has been held, is evidence which a reasoning mind would accept as sufficient to support a particular conclusion. It consists of more than a mere scintilla of evidence but may be somewhat less than a preponderance. If there is evidence to justify a refusal to direct a verdict were the case before a jury, then there is 'substantial evidence.'").

Where conflicting evidence "allows reasonable minds to differ as to whether a claimant is disabled, the responsibility for that decision falls on the [Commissioner] (or the [Commissioner's] designate, the ALJ)," not on the reviewing court. Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir. 1996); see also Edwards v. Sullivan, 937 F.2d 580, 584 n.3 (11th Cir. 1991) (stating that where the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence, the court will affirm, even if the reviewer would have reached a contrary result as finder of fact and even if the reviewer finds that the evidence preponderates against the Commissioner's decision). Thus, it is not within the province of a reviewing court to determine the weight of the evidence, nor is it the court's function to substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner so long as the decision is supported by substantial evidence. See Bird v. Comm'r, 699 F.3d 337, 340 (4th Cir. 2012); Laws, 368 F.2d at 642; Snyder v. Ribicoff, 307 F.2d 518, 520 (4th Cir. 1962).

The reviewing court will reverse the Commissioner's decision on plenary review, however, if the decision applies incorrect law or fails to provide the court with sufficient reasoning to determine that the Commissioner properly applied the law. Myers v. Califano, 611 F.2d 980, 982 (4th Cir. 1980); see also Keeton v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 21 F.3d 1064, 1066 (11th Cir. 1994). Where the Commissioner's decision "is in clear disregard of the overwhelming weight of the evidence, Congress has empowered the courts to modify or reverse the [Commissioner's] decision 'with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing.'" Vitek v. Finch, 438 F.2d 1157, 1158 (4th Cir. 1971) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)). Remand is unnecessary where "the record does not contain substantial evidence to support a decision denying coverage under the correct legal standard andwhen reopening the record for more evidence would serve no purpose." Breeden v. Weinberger, 493 F.2d 1002, 1012 (4th Cir. 1974).

The court may remand a case to the Commissioner for a rehearing under sentence four or sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Sargent v. Sullivan, 941 F.2d 1207 (4th Cir. 1991) (unpublished table decision). To remand under sentence four, the reviewing court must find either that the Commissioner's decision is not supported by substantial evidence or that the Commissioner incorrectly applied the law relevant to the disability claim. See, e.g., Jackson v. Chater, 99 F.3d 1086, 1090-91 (11th Cir. 1996) (holding remand was appropriate where the ALJ failed to develop a full and fair record of the claimant's residual functional capacity); Brenem v. Harris, 621 F.2d 688, 690-91 (5th Cir. 1980) (holding remand was appropriate where record was insufficient to affirm but was also insufficient for court to find the claimant disabled). Where the court cannot discern the basis for the Commissioner's decision, a remand under sentence four is usually the proper course to allow the Commissioner to explain the basis for the decision or for additional investigation. See Radford v. Comm'r, 734 F.3d 288, 295 (4th Cir. 2013) (quoting Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729, 744 (1985);see also Smith v. Heckler, 782 F.2d 1176, 1181-82 (4th Cir. 1986) (remanding case where decision of ALJ contained "a gap in its reasoning" because ALJ did not say he was discounting testimony or why); Gordon v. Schweiker, 725 F.2d 231, 235 (4th Cir. 1984) (remanding case where neither the ALJ nor the Appeals Council...