Catir v. Astrue
| Decision Date | 27 April 2011 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL No. SKG-09-2325 |
| Parties | SAMANTHA CATIR, v. MICHAEL ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Plaintiff, Samantha Catir, by her attorney, Paul R. Schlitz, Jr. Esq., filed this action seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("SSA"), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), who denied Ms. Catir's claim for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB") and Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") under Title II of the Social Security Act ("the Act"), as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-434.
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. (ECF No. 8). Currently pending before the Court are cross motions for summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 14 and 26). No hearing is necessary in this case. Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons discussed below, this Court DENIES Ms. Catir's motion for summary judgment and GRANTS the Commissioner's motion.
Plaintiff, Ms. Samantha Catir, filed for Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") and Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB"). Both Ms. Catir (ECF 14-1, 2) and the Administrative Law Judge's ("ALJ") opinion (R. 14) cite July 13, 2005 as her filing date for SSI and DIB. The Commissioner cites her filing date as August 26, 2005. (ECF 26-1, 1); See (R. 51). This conflict of filing dates is immaterial to the questions presented.
Ms. Catir's applications were denied at both the initial and the reconsideration levels. (R. 41, 44). A hearing was held on June 3, 2009 before ALJ Timothy C. Pace. (R. 316-352). On July 16, 2008, ALJ Pace denied Ms. Catir's claim for benefits on the grounds that she had the capacity to successfully adjust to other work that existed in significant numbers in the national economy. (R. 25-26). The Appeals Council subsequently denied Ms. Catir's application for review, making the ALJ's decision the final decision of the SSA. (R. 6-8). Ms. Catir has exhausted her administrative remedies and seeks review of
the SSA decision by this Court. (ECF No. 14).
The Court adopts the Commissioner's Statement of Facts, having reviewed the record and finding them to be accurate and complete.
In evaluating Ms. Catir's claim for disability under the Act, the ALJ must consider the entire record and follow the sequential five step evaluation process set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a). Upon completion of the five step evaluation process in this case, the ALJ concluded that Ms. Catir was not disabled under the Act because she could adjust to other jobs available in significant numbers in the national economy. (R. 25-26).
At step one, the claimant must prove that she is not engaged in any "substantial gainful activity."1 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i). If the ALJ finds that the claimant has engaged in "substantial gainful activity," then the claimant will not be considered disabled. Ms. Catir previously worked as a fast food worker, sorter, order filler and bell ringer. (R. 343). The ALJ determined that none of these activities reached the level of substantial gainful activity. (Id.). Because she has never engaged in substantial gainful activity, Ms. Catir satisfied this first step. (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(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii), 404.1520(c), 416.920(c); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1521, 416.921. There is also a durational requirement that plaintiff'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. Catir's juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, bipolar disorder and personality disorder were severe impairments. (R. 16). However, the ALJ did not find any of her other conditions to be severe impairments. He rejected Dr. Miller's assessment of reading, cognitive and impulse control disorders and further found that Dr. Miller's assessment of illiteracy was inconsistent with Ms. Catir's medical history. (R. 18). The ALJ similarly rejected Dr. Miller's diagnosis of cognitive disorders because Dr. Gallagher, Ms. Catir's treating physician, assessed Ms. Catir with average intellectual functioning and because Dr. Miller did not perform a formal intelligence assessment. (Id.). The ALJ also rejected Dr. Miller's assessment of an impulse control disorder, as it was based on testimony provided by Ms. Catir's grandmother regarding a single occasion on which Ms. Catir had cut up her grandmother's sweaters. (Id.).
At step three, 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 ("Listing" or "LOI"). 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii). The ALJ found that Ms. Catir's impairments did not equal in severity any pertinent section of the listings, whether considered singly or in combination. (R. 18-20).
The ALJ determined that Ms. Catir's rheumatoid arthritis did not approach the severity of the condition described in section 14.09A as her consultative examinations from Dr. Yu in April 2006 (R. 252-255) and Dr. Waseem in November 2006 (R. 268271) showed no signs of arthritis. (R. 18).
The ALJ determined that Ms. Catir's bipolar disorder and personality disorder met the "A" criteria for section 12.04 and 12.08; however, these conditions when considered singly or in combination did not meet the "B" criteria. (R. 18). To satisfy the part "B" criteria, the mental impairments must result in at least two of the following: 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, each of extended duration. 20 CFR Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1. A marked limitation means more than moderate but less thanextreme. Id. Repeated episodes of decompensation, means three episodes within one year, lasting at least two weeks. Id.
The ALJ determined that Ms. Catir had only moderate restrictions of daily living. (R. 19). When Ms. Catir was depressed, she would stay in bed and watch television. (Id.). On days when Ms. Catir was experiencing a manic episode, she would throw out her dirty clothes instead of putting them in the laundry. (Id.). However, she was found to only have moderate restrictions because Dr. Taller found that most of Ms. Catir's activities were on her own initiative, not as a result of prompting (R. 224), and because Ms. Catir's activities included regularly visiting the library, attending church, shopping for groceries, preparing simple meals and washing dishes. (R. 19).
With regard to Ms. Catir's social functioning, the ALJ determined that she had moderate difficulties. (Id.). Ms. Catir was easily irritated; she did not relate well with supervisors and co-workers and had been fired from several jobs due to her temper. (Id.). However, contrasted with her testimony, Ms. Catir's written statements asserted that she got along adequately with authority figures and had never been fired because of an inability to get along with others. (Id.). In evaluating the conflicting evidence, the ALJ concluded that Ms. Catir only had moderate restrictions in social functioning. (Id.).
The ALJ determined that Ms. Catir also had moderate difficulties with regard to her concentration, persistence or pace. (Id.). Ms. Catir advised that she is unable to manage her finances and has difficulty understanding, concentrating, remembering and completing tasks. (Id.). However, Dr. Taller assessed Ms. Catir as having average concentration and memory, and determined that she was able to understand, remember, and follow simple job instructions independently. (R. 226). In evaluating the conflicting evidence, the ALJ made a finding of moderate restrictions on concentration, persistence and pace. (R. 19). Finally, the ALJ determined that Ms. Catir had only one to two episodes of decompensation. (Id.). Because Ms. Catir's mental impairments did not cause at least two "marked" limitations, the paragraph "B" criteria for section 12.04 or 12.08 were not satisfied.
Before an ALJ advances to the fourth step, he must assess the claimant's "residual functional capacity" ("RFC"), which is then used at the fourth and fifth steps. 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." SSR 96-8p. The ALJ must consider even those impairments that are not "severe." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)-(e).
The ALJ determined that Ms. Catir's residual functional capacity allowed her to perform light work that was limited to simple, unskilled tasks. (R. 20). These tasks would not require any ability to understand or remember, and it would only require her to carry out simple instructions that did not require her to interact with others. (Id.). In reaching his conclusion, the ALJ determined that Ms. Catir was not credible due to significant inconsistencies in her statements. (R. 21). Her inconsistencies included describing herself as functionally illiterate when her hobbies included reading almost daily and using the computer; stating that she was easily distracted and could not get things done, yet she was able to read two chapters in a social studies book and five chapters of Harry Potter; stating that she rarely reads instructions, yet one of her hobbies is playing board games. (Id.). She further claimed to have never been fired for not getting along with other people, yet she was fired from one job due to an argument she had with a customer and from other jobs because of her temper. (Id.).
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial