Plaintiff
Jennifer Chance, seeks judicial review of the final decision
of the Commissioner of Social Security denying her
applications for Supplemental Security Income
("SSI") and Disability Insurance Benefits
("DIB"). This matter is before me by consent of the
parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court REVERSES the
Commissioner of Social Security's nondisability finding
and REMANDS this case to the Commissioner and the ALJ under
Sentence Four of § 405(g).
On
February 7, 2019 and March 5, 2019, Chance filed applications
for DIB and SSI respectively, alleging a disability onset
date of January 23, 2018. (ECF No. 12, PagelD #: 329-32). The
applications were denied initially and upon reconsideration,
and Chance requested a hearing before an administrative
lawjudge ("ALJ"). (ECF No. 12, PagelD #: 253). On
June 15, 2020, an ALJ held a hearing, during which Chance,
represented by counsel, and an impartial
vocational expert testified. (ECF No. 12, PagelD #: 102). On
July 9, 2020, the ALJ issued a written decision finding
Chance was not disabled. (ECF No. 12, PagelD #: 81). The
ALJ's decision became final on November 24, 2020, when
the Appeals Council declined further review. (ECF No. 12,
PagelD #: 70).
On
January 20, 2021, Chance filed her Complaint to challenge the
Commissioner's final decision. (ECF No. 1). The parties
have completed briefing in this case. (ECF Nos. 13, 14, 16).
Chance
asserts the following assignment of error:
The ALJ's residual functional capacity finding is
insufficiently specific and therefore a violation of Social
Security Rulings 83-12, 96-8p and 96-9p in regards to the
sit/stand option and failure to include a limitation allowing
use of an ambulatory device to maintain balance.
(ECF No. 13 at 2).
A.
Relevant Hearing Testimony
Chance
testified that she lives at home with her
twenty-seven-year-old son and mother. (ECF No. 12, PagelD #:
110). She testified that she could do household chores, make
meals, and meet her own personal needs. (ECFNo. 12, PagelD #:
110-11). She stated that she does this all while sitting.
(ECF No. 12, PagelD #: 110-11). Chance can leave the house,
pick up groceries after ordering them online, and go for
shorttrips inside stores. (ECF No. 12, PagelD #: 111-12).
Chance uses a cane anytime she leaves the house and sometimes
inside of the house. (ECF No. 12, PagelD #: 112). In
situations where she might need to walk longer distances, she
brings her walker so that she can sit down at anytime. (ECF
No. 12, PagelD #: 114-15). Chance stated that she cannot
stand longer than 10 minutes, even with a cane. (ECF No. 12,
PagelD #: 129). She also testified that she has problems
sitting due to pain. (ECFNo. 12, PagelD #: 121-22).
B.
Relevant Medical Evidence
The ALJ
summarized Chance's health records and symptoms:
The record shows treatment for the above severe impairments.
In March 2018, it was noted that the claimant complained of
pain in both feet, worse with ambulation (Ex. 2F/9). It was
noted that her footpain was likely due to structural changes
resulting from obesity, although furthertesting was ordered
(Ex. 2F/9). She was referred for x-rays and bariatric
consultation (Ex. 2F/9). EMG was performed, showing mild
peripheral neuropathy of the lower extremities (Ex. 29F/2).
Examination at that time showed decreased vibration sensation
in the lower extremities, negative straightleg raise testing,
normal muscle tone andreflexes, andno weakness (Ex. 30F/3).
She was independent in mobility, transfer, and ambulation,
without an assistive device, and she was able to stand on
heels and toes with difficulty, but was unable to walk on
heels and toes (Ex. 30F/4). Diabetic foot examination was
performed in April, showing normal findings (Ex. 5F/26). She
was provided with an orthotic arch support (Ex. 5F/29).
X-rays showed plantar enthesopathy on the right, but were
otherwise unremarkable (Ex. 5F/32).
Examination in August showed normal strength, reflexes, and
sensation, and tenderness to palpation of the feet (Ex.
2F/12). It was noted that her gait was normal on a narrow
base for body habitus, and she was not "really using
cane" (Ex. 2F/14). She was seen for complaints of
chronic leg pain in September (Ex. 2F/27). Lumbar MRI showed
no evidence of disc herniation or canal or foraminal
stenosis, although there was mild disc degeneration atLl-L2
(Ex. 2F/30). Examination showed normal reflexes, decreased
range of motion in the left hip, right knee, and lumbar
spine, with no muscle spasm (Ex. 3F/22). Her medications were
adjusted (Ex. 2F/31). She reported decreased pain in her feet
at a follow up in March 2019, although she continued to
report paresthesia, along with tingling in the hands (Ex.
15F/3). Her medications were adjusted, and weight loss was
again recommended (Ex. 15F/6). Stress testing in April 2019
showed normal findings, with no evidence of myocardial
ischemia, and an ejection fraction of 74% (Ex. 12F/24).
In August, she complained of sharp pains at night in her
feet, denying weakness in the hands or feet, along with
intermittent numbness and tingling in the hands, with no
symptoms of low back pain (Ex. 2 IF/3). It was noted that she
had lost about2O pounds (Ex. 2 IF/3). Examination showed
normal strength, although there was a stocking and glove
distribution of decreased sensation in the upper and lower
extremities (Ex. 21F/5). Her medications were adjusted,
and she was advised to continue weight loss, with regular
diet and exercise (Ex. 21F/6). She had complaints of
bilateral knee pain and hip pain at an orthopedic
consultation in March 2020 (Ex. 25F/6). Examination showed
trace effusion, with tenderness to palpation, partially
correctible varus deformity, and stable varus and valgus
stress (Ex. 25F/7). Bilateral knee x-rays were performed,
showing mild to moderate bilateral tricompartment
degenerative/arthritic changes, greatest on the right,
involving the medial compartment (Ex. 24F/2). She was
provided with an injection to the right knee, and aquatic
therapy was recommended (Ex. 24F/7). The claimant also
attended chiropractic care due to her complaints of pain (Ex.
7F; l6F;23F;28F). A walker was prescribed in June 2019 (Ex.
17F).
(ECF No. 12, PagelD#: 90-91).
The ALJ
made the following findings relevant to this appeal:
3. The claimant has the following severe impairments:
obesity; lumbar degenerative disc disease; diabetes mellitus
with neuropathy; bilateral knee osteoarthritis; and
peripheral neuropathy (20 CFR 404.1520(c) and416.920(c)).
4. The claimant 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 (20 CFR 404.1520(d), 404.1525, 404.1526,
416.920(d), 416.925 and 416.926).
5. After careful consideration of the entire record, the
undersigned finds that the claimant has the residual
functional capacity to perform sedentary work as defined in
20 CFR 404.1567(a) and 416.967(a) except occasional climbing
of ramps and stairs; no climbing of ladders, ropes, or
scaffolds; occasional balancing occasional stooping,
kneeling, crouching, and crawling; frequent gripping,
grasping, handling, fingering, and feeling bilaterally; no
exposure to extreme cold, vibration/vibrating tools,
unprotected heights or moving mechanical parts; occasional
operation of bilateral foot controls; no operation of a motor
vehicle within the scope of employment; sit/stand option at
will at the workstation that would not take her off task more
than 10% of the workday-essentially, jobs that can be
performed either sitting or standing at the individual's
option. Furthermore, she can use a cane for ambulation
to/from the workstation and for prolonged ambulation.
Finally, the claimant would be limited to simple, routine
tasks in an
environment free from fast-paced production work (such as an
assembly line wherein all tasks must be completed within
strict timeframes) with only simple work-related decision
making and few, if any, workplace changes.
(ECF No. 12, PagelD#: 86-89).
The
Court's review "is limited to determining whether
the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial
evidence and was made pursuant to proper legal
standards." Winn v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec, 615
Fed.Appx. 315, 320 (6th Cir. 2015); see also 42
U.S.C. § 405(g). "[Substantial evidence is defined
as 'more than a scintilla of evidence but less than a
preponderance; it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion'" Rogers v. Comm 'r of Soc.
Sec, 486 F.3d 234, 241 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting
Cutlip v. Sec 'y of HHS, 25 F.3d 284, 286 (6th
Cir. 1994)).
"After
the Appeals Council reviews the ALJ's decision, the
determination of the council becomes the final decision of
the Secretary and is subject to review by this Court."
Olive v. Comm 'r of Soc Sec, No. 3:06 CV1597,
2007 WL 5403416, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 19, 2007) (citing
Abbott v. Sullivan, 905 F.2d 918, 922 (6th Cir. 1990);
Mullen v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 535, 538 (6th Cir. 1986)
(en banc)). If the Commissioner's decision is
supported by substantial evidence, it must be affirmed,
"even if a reviewing court would decide the matter
differently." Id. (citing 42 U.S.C. §
405(g); Kinsella v. Schweiker, 708 F.2d 1058,
1059-60(6th Cir. 1983)).
B.
Standard for Disability
The
Social Security regulations outline a...
