Castrovianci v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., Case No: 2:17-cv-179-FtM-99CM
| Decision Date | 02 August 2018 |
| Docket Number | Case No: 2:17-cv-179-FtM-99CM |
| Parties | RONALD J. CASTROVIANCI, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida |
Plaintiff Ronald J. Castrovianci seeks judicial review of the denial of his claims for disability and disability insurance benefits ("DIB") and supplemental security income ("SSI") by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("Commissioner"). The Court has reviewed the record, the Joint Memorandum (Doc. 24), and the applicable law. For the reasons discussed herein, the Court recommends the decision of the Commissioner be reversed, and this matter be remanded pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), sentence four.
Plaintiff raises six issues on appeal:3 (1) whether the administrative law judge ("ALJ") erred in failing to find Plaintiff's knee impairment to be medically determinable and severe; (2) whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ's residual functional capacity ("RFC") finding to the extent he discounted the opinion of consulting examiner ("CE") Paula Bowman, Pys.D., and state agency psychologists; (3) whether the ALJ properly evaluated Plaintiff's mental capacity; (4) whether the ALJ erred in failing to limit Plaintiff's social functioning and concentration, persistence, or pace; (5) whether the ALJ failed to inquire into a conflict between the vocational expert's ("VE") testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles ("DOT"); and (6) whether the ALJ improperly relied on the VE's testimony to find jobs exist in significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform.
On November 4, 2015, and December 3, 2015,4 Plaintiff filed applications for DIB and SSI, respectively, alleging his disability began February 1, 2014, due to back, knee, and leg pain; nerve damage; arthritis; bipolar disorder; and depression. Tr. 79-80, 93-94, 107-08, 208-17, 247. Plaintiff's claims were denied initially and uponreconsideration. Tr. 91, 105, 124-25, 141-42. On May 19, 2016, Plaintiff requested a hearing before an ALJ on his claims. Tr. 185. ALJ William G. Reamon held a hearing on August 16, 2016, during which Plaintiff and VE Robert Lessne, Ph.D., testified. Tr. 39-78. On September 14, 2016, the ALJ found Plaintiff not disabled through the date of his decision. Tr. 22-33.
At step one, the ALJ found Plaintiff "meets the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act through June 30, 2016." Tr. 24. The ALJ determined Plaintiff has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since February 1, 2014, the alleged onset date. Id. Next, the ALJ found that Plaintiff has severe impairments of lumbar and cervical spine degenerative disc disease, other unspecified arthropathies, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ("COPD"), affective disorder, anxiety disorder, obesity, alcohol abuse disorder and a substance abuse disorder. Id.
The ALJ concluded Plaintiff "does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1." Tr. 25. The ALJ then determined that Plaintiff had the RFC to perform light work5 with certainlimitations, including that, due to his mental impairments, he "can perform no work above the SVP6 2 level." Tr. 26. Next, the ALJ found Plaintiff is unable to perform his past relevant work as a furniture sales person and retail manager. Tr. 31. Considering Plaintiff's age, education, work experience and RFC, the ALJ concluded there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy Plaintiff can perform. Id. As a result, the ALJ found that Plaintiff is not disabled. Tr. 32-33.
Following the ALJ's decision, Plaintiff filed a request for review by the Appeals Council, which was denied on February 7, 2017. Tr. 1. Accordingly, the September 14, 2016 decision is the final decision of the Commissioner. Plaintiff filed an appeal with this Court on March 30, 2017. Doc. 1. The matter is now ripe for review.
The scope of this Court's review is limited to determining whether the ALJ applied the correct legal standards and whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence. McRoberts v. Bowen, 841 F.2d 1077, 1080 (11th Cir. 1988) (citing Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 390, 401 (1971)). The Commissioner's findings of fact are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).7 Substantial evidence is "more than a scintilla, i.e., evidence that must domore than create a suspicion of the existence of the fact to be established, and 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) (internal citations omitted).
The Eleventh Circuit has restated that "[i]n determining whether substantial evidence supports a decision, we give great deference to the ALJ's factfindings." Hunter v. Soc. Sec. Admin., Comm'r, 808 F.3d 818, 822 (11th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). 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 or found that the preponderance of the evidence is 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); see also Lowery v. Sullivan, 979 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1992) (). The Court reviews the Commissioner's conclusions of law under a de novo standard of review. Ingram v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 496 F.3d 1253, 1260 (11th Cir. 2007) (citing Martin v. Sullivan, 894 F.2d 1520, 1529 (11th Cir. 1990)).
A medically determinable physical or mental impairment is one that "can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than twelve months." 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(A). The Social Security Regulations explain what is needed for a claimant to show an impairment:
[A claimaint's] impairment must result from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities which can be shown by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques. A physical or mental impairment must be established by medical evidence consisting of signs, symptoms, and laboratory findings, not only by [a claimant's] statement of symptoms.
20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1508, 416.908 (2016). The regulations clearly state that a claimant's statements alone "are not enough to establish that there is a physical or mental impairment." 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1528, 416.928 (2016). Medically acceptable laboratory diagnostic techniques to establish a medical determinable impairment include "chemical tests, electrophysiological studies (electrocardiogram, electroencephalogram, etc.), roentgenological studies (X-rays), and psychological tests." Id.
At the second step in the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ determines whether the claimant has a severe impairment. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii). A severe impairment is an impairment or combination of impairments that significantly limits a claimant's physical or mental ability to dobasic work activities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c); 416.920(c). "An impairment is not severe only if the abnormality is so slight and its effect so minimal that it would clearly not be expected to interfere with the individual's ability to work, irrespective of age, education or work experience." McDaniel v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 1026, 1031 (11th Cir. 1986). "[A] diagnosis or a mere showing of 'a deviation from purely medical standards of bodily perfection or normality' is insufficient; instead, the claimant must show the effect of the impairment on her ability to work." Wind v. Barnhart, 133 F. App'x 684, 690 (11th Cir. 2005) (quoting McCruter v. Bowen, 791 F.2d 1544, 1547 (11th Cir. 1986)). Before reaching the issue of severity, however, the ALJ first determines whether a claimant's alleged impairment is a medically determinable impairment. Lopez v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 8:14-cv-600-T-PDB, 2015 WL 12844407, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 25, 2015).
Here, at step two, after listing the impairments the ALJ found severe, he stated: "While claimant alleged right knee degenerative joint disease, x-rays of the claimant's knee showed no substantive abnormalities to confirm such a diagnosis[;] the allegation is therefore considered non-medically determinable." Tr. 24. Plaintiff argues the ALJ improperly rejected his claim of a knee impairment solely because a 2012 x-ray was negative. Doc. 24 at 29. Plaintiff cites observations from Adam Shuster, D.O., and Michael Rosenberg, M.D., that he argues support a medically determinable impairment. Id. Plaintiff argues, as his attorney did at the hearing, that the ALJ should have ordered a post-hearing consultative examination with a knee x-ray to evaluate the severity of the knee impairment. Id. at 30, Tr. 75.The Commissioner responds Dr. Rosenberg's records do not support a medically determinable impairment. Doc. 24 at 32. The Commissioner further argues that, even if Plaintiff had a severe impairment in his knee, it would not be relevant because it did not affect Plaintiff's ability to work the limited range of light work delineated by the ALJ. Id. at 32-33.
On June 5, 2012, Plaintiff saw Dr. Shuster, who observed that he had "crepitation at both knees bilaterally with some 'soreness' to palpitation of the right knee." Tr. 433. He assessed Plaintiff with knee osteoarthritis. Id. Dr. Shuster broadly indicates in his plan notes that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial