Boehm v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
| Decision Date | 25 June 2015 |
| Docket Number | Case No: 2:14-cv-498-FtM-DNF |
| Parties | JANET E. BOEHM, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida |
This cause is before the Court on Plaintiff, Janet E. Boehm's Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 8) filed on September 4, 2014. Plaintiff, Janet E. Boehm seeks judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("SSA") denying her claim for a period of disability, disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The Commissioner filed the Transcript of the proceedings (hereinafter referred to as "Tr." followed by the appropriate page number), and the parties filed legal memoranda in support of their positions. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se which is without the benefit of counsel, therefore Ms. Boehm is held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by attorneys and her filings are given a "liberal construction." Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11 Cir. 2007). For the reasons set out herein, the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED pursuant to §205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §405(g).
The law defines disability as the inability to do any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result indeath or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than twelve months. 42 U.S.C. §§416(i), 423(d)(1)(A), 1382(a)(3)(A); 20 C.F.R. §§404.1505, 416.905. The impairment must be severe, making the claimant unable to do his previous work, or any other substantial gainful activity which exists in the national economy. 42 U.S.C. §§423(d)(2), 1382(a)(3); 20 C.F.R. §§404.1505 - 404.1511, 416.905 - 416.911. Plaintiff bears the burden of persuasion through step four, while at step five the burden shifts to the Commissioner. Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146, n.5 (1987).
On September 13, 2011, Plaintiff filed applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income asserting a disability onset date of September 9, 2010. (Tr. p. 200, 201, 288-298). Plaintiff's applications were denied initially on November 15, 2011 and on reconsideration December 16, 2011. (Tr. p. 201, 202, 221, 222). Two hearings were held before Administrative Law Judge Ronald Robins on March 9, 2012 and August 16, 2012. (Tr. p. 136-180). The ALJ issued an unfavorable decision on November 29, 2012. (Tr. p. 117-130). On August 13, 2014, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review. (Tr. p. 1-7). Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 8) in the United States District Court on September 4, 2014. This case is ripe for review. The parties consented to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge for all proceedings. (See, Doc. 21).
An ALJ must follow a five-step sequential evaluation process to determine if a claimant has proven that he is disabled. Packer v. Commissioner of Social Security, 542 F. App'x 890, 891 (11th Cir. 2013)1(citing Jones v. Apfel, 190 F.3d 1224, 1228 (11th Cir. 1999)). An ALJ mustdetermine whether the claimant (1) is performing substantial gainful activity; (2) has a severe impairment; (3) has a severe impairment that meets or equals an impairment specifically listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1; (4) can perform his past relevant work; and (5) can perform other work of the sort found in the national economy. Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1237-40 (11th Cir. 2004). The claimant has the burden of proof through step four and then the burden shifts to the Commissioner at step five. Hines-Sharp v. Commissioner of Soc. Sec., 511 F. App'x 913, 915 n.2 (11th Cir. 2013).
The ALJ found that Plaintiff met the insured status requirements through June 30, 2016. (Tr. p. 119). At step one of the sequential evaluation, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since September 9, 2010, the alleged onset date. (Tr. p. 119). At step two, the ALJ found that Plaintiff suffered from the following severe impairments: osteoarthritis of the cervical and lumbar spine, hypertension, hyperthyroidism with a history of Graves Disease, an anxiety disorder, and a history of benzodiazepine and alcohol abuse. (Tr. p. 119). At step three, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 404.1525, 404.1526, 416.920(d), 416.925, and 416.926). (Tr. p. 120). At step four, the ALJ determined that the Plaintiff has the residual functional capacity ("RFC") to perform medium work, except that she has a moderate limitation in the area of understanding, remembering, and carrying out complex instructions and the ability to make judgments on complex work-related decisions. (Tr. p. 122). The ALJ defined moderate as more than a slight limitation, but the individual is still able tofunction satisfactorily. (Tr. p. 122, n. 1). The ALJ determined that Plaintiff is capable of performing her past relevant work as an administrative clerk (DOT2 #219.362-010) and a data entry clerk (DOT #203.582-054) finding that this work does not require the performance of work-related activities precluded by Plaintiffs RFC. Alternatively, the ALJ continued to step five and determined that based upon Plaintiff's age, education, work experience, and RFC, there are other jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff can perform such as ticket seller (DOT # 211.467-030), fast food worker (DOT # 311.472-010) and housekeeping cleaner (DOT # 323.687-014).
The scope of this Court's review is limited to determining whether the ALJ applied the correct legal standard, McRoberts v. Bowen, 841 F.2d 1077, 1080 (11th Cir. 1988), and whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence, Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 390 (1971). 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. Foote v. Chater, 67 F.3d 1553, 1560 (11th Cir. 1995), citing Walden v. Schweiker, 672 F.2d 835, 838 (11th Cir. 1982) and Richardson, 402 U.S. at 401.
Where the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence, the district 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. Edwards v. Sullivan, 937 F.2d 580, 584 n.3 (11th Cir. 1991); Barnes v. Sullivan, 932 F.2d 1356,1358 (11th Cir. 1991). The district court must view the evidence as a whole, taking into account evidence favorable as well as unfavorable to the decision. Foote, 67 F.3d at 1560; accord, Lowery v. Sullivan, 979 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1992) ().
The Court will liberally construe Plaintiff's Reply to an Answer (Doc. 23) filed on November 25, 2014, and Reply Memorandum of Law Plaintiff's Opposition of the Memorandum to Commissioner's Decision (Doc. 25) filed on January 28, 2015 and consider the Commissioner's Memorandum in Support of the Commissioner's Decision (Doc. 24) filed on January 23, 2015. Plaintiff asserts the following issues:
Plaintiff asserts that she met or equaled the following Listings: 11.00 Neurological, 11.01 Category of Impairments Neurological, and 11.02 Epilepsy - Convulsive Epilepsy (grand mal or psychomotor). The Commissioner asserts that Plaintiff failed to show that her impairments met or equaled any of the Listings for neurological disorders, arguing that her medical evidence concerning a diagnosis of epilepsy occurred after the ALJ's decision.
To meet the requirements of a listing, a plaintiff must "have a medically determinable impairment(s) that satisfies all of the criteria in the listing." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1525(d). The burden is on Plaintiff to show that she meets the Listings. Wilkinson on Behalf of Wilkinson v. Bowen, 847 F.2d 660, 662 (11th Cir. 1987). If an impairment manifests only some of the criteria, then it does not qualify, no matter how severe the impairment. Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 530 (1990). To meet a Listing, a plaintiff must have a diagnosis included in the Listings, and "must provide medical reports documenting that the conditions meet the specific criteria of the Listings and the duration requirement. Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219, 1224 (11th Cir. 2002) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 1525(a) - (d)). "If a claimant has more than one impairment, and none meets or equals a listed impairment, the Commissioner reviews the impairments' symptoms, signs, and laboratory findings to determine whether the combination is medically equal to any listed impairment." Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1526(a)).
Listing 11.00 provides in part as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial