Cline v. Saul, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-cv-00182
| Decision Date | 13 January 2021 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-cv-00182 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia |
| Parties | THOMAS DWIGHT CLINE, Plaintiff, v. ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. |
Plaintiff Thomas Dwight Cline ("Claimant") seeks review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the "Commissioner") denying his applications for Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB") under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-33, and for Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381-83f. (ECF No. 2.) By standing order entered on January 4, 2016, and filed in this case on March 16, 2020, this matter was referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge to consider the pleadings and evidence and to submit proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (ECF No. 3.) Presently pending before this Court are Claimant's Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings (ECF No. 16) and the Commissioner's Brief in Support of Defendant's Decision (ECF No. 17).
Having fully considered the record and the arguments of the parties, the undersigned respectfully RECOMMENDS that the presiding District Judge GRANT Claimant's request to reverse the Commissioner's decision (ECF No. 16), DENY the Commissioner's request to affirm his decision (ECF No. 17), REVERSE the final decision of the Commissioner, and REMAND this matter for further proceedings.
Claimant was 48 years old at the time of his alleged disability onset date and 52 years old on the date of the decision by the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"). (See Tr. at 209, 211.)1 He completed the seventh grade. (Id. at 231.) Most recently, he worked as a heavy equipment operator for a coal company, and he has also been employed at a logging company. (Id. at 555.) Claimant alleges that he became disabled on January 1, 2015, due to "Neck and back injury," gout, "heart problems," high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes, and arthritis. (Id. at 230.)
Claimant protectively filed his applications for benefits on February 3, 2016. (Id. at 15, 209-17.) His claims were initially denied on December 29, 2016, and again upon reconsideration on May 2, 2017. (Id. at 124-29, 134-47.) Thereafter, on June 27, 2017, Claimant filed a written request for hearing. (Id. at 148-49.) An administrative hearing was held before an ALJ on November 5, 2018, in Logan, West Virginia, with the ALJ appearing from Tampa, Florida. (Id. at 32-61.) On January 17, 2019, the ALJ rendered an unfavorable decision. (Id. at 12-31.) Claimant then sought review of the ALJ's decision by the Appeals Council on January 23, 2019. (Id. at 205-08.) The Appeals Council denied Claimant's request for review on January 14, 2020, and the ALJ's decision became the final decision of the Commissioner on that date. (Id. at 1-6.)
Claimant timely brought the present action on March 13, 2020, seeking judicial review of the ALJ's decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (ECF No. 2.) The Commissioner filed an Answer (ECF No. 11) and a transcript of the administrative proceedings (ECF Nos. 12, 13). Claimant subsequently filed his Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings (ECF No. 16), and in response, the Commissioner filed his Brief in Support of Defendant's Decision (ECF No. 17). As such, this matter is fully briefed and ready for resolution.
The undersigned has considered all evidence of record, including the medical evidence, pertaining to Claimant's arguments and summarizes it here for the convenience of the United States District Judge.
When completing a "Disability Report - Adult" form in connection with his applications for benefits on March 16, 2016, Claimant stated that he was able to read and understand English and write more than his name in English. (Tr. at 229.) He also stated that he had completed the seventh grade. (Id. at 231.) Claimant's aunt completed a "Function Report - Adult" form for him several weeks later. (Id. at 252.) In response to a question on that form about how well he followed written instructions, Claimant answered that he could "follow a recipe but not putting things together." (Id. at 250.) He elaborated, "someone has to read the directions to me." (Id.) Claimant's aunt also helped him complete a "Personal Pain Questionnaire" form, and Claimant represented on that form, "I can't read or write that's why someone helped fill the papers out." (Id. at 261.)
At his consultative medical examination on July 28, 2016, Claimant reported to the consultative examiner that he completed the seventh grade. (Id. at 448.)
Claimant's aunt completed another "Function Report - Adult" form for him on September 30, 2016. (Id. at 269.) On that form, Claimant stated that he is unable to pay bills or use a checkbook and money orders because he doesn't "know how to spell good enough to fill them out and keep track of it all." (Id. at 265.) When asked the same question about how well he could follow written instructions, this time Claimant answered, "I can't read good enough to follow them." (Id. at 267.) He also stated, "I can't read good so my mom fix's [sic] my pills in a container." (Id. at 269.)
Claimant underwent a consultative psychological examination on October 25, 2016. (Id. at 553.) When reciting Claimant's educational history, the consultative examiner noted, "he completed the 12th grade at Gilbert Junior High School." (Id. at 554.)2 She also noted that he "did not receive special education services," but "He was retained twice repeating the 1st and 7th grades." (Id.) She stated, "He was an average to below average student." (Id.) The consultative examiner continued, "Regarding his current ability to read and write, [Claimant] reported 'I did pretty good in math, but the reading and all that other stuff I just didn't get.'" (Id.) Claimant told her that he could manage his finances. (Id. at 555.)
At Claimant's second consultative medical examination on December 9, 2016, he reported to the consultative examiner that he completed the seventh grade. (Id. at 571.)
On March 4, 2017, Claimant's aunt completed a third "Function Report - Adult" form on his behalf. (Id. at 290.) Claimant again represented that he was unable to pay his bills and stated that his mother does it for him. (Id. at 286.) He also stated, "I do believe I have a learning disability I never did well in school." (Id. at 288.) Claimantremarked that he "can follow a simple recipe but someone has to read it for [him]." (Id.) He further represented that his mother "puts [his] pills in a container because [he] can't read to do them good enough." (Id. at 290.)
Claimant testified at the administrative hearing that he cannot read and write and that his mother and his aunt helped him with "paperwork." (Id. at 38.)
Later in the proceeding, after a vocational expert ("VE") had identified representative jobs in response to a hypothetical from the ALJ, the ALJ asked her to imagine a hypothetical individual who, in addition to the limitations the ALJ had previously identified, "would be capable of following simple instructions and instructions that are more detailed than two steps would need to be verbal instructions not written." (Id. at 58.) The VE testified that the additional limitation "would not have any impact on the jobs [she] identified" because (Id.)
An individual unable "to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which 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 12 months" is considered to be disabled and thus eligible for benefits. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). The Social Security Administration has established a five-step sequential evaluation process to aid in this determination. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4); Lewis v. Berryhill, 858 F.3d 858, 861 (4th Cir. 2017). The ALJ proceeds through each step until making a finding of either "disabled" or "not disabled"; if no finding is made, the analysis advances to the next step. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4),416.920(a)(4). "The ultimate burden to prove disability lies on the claimant." Preston v. Heckler, 769 F.2d 988, 990 n.* (4th Cir. 1985); see Bird v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 699 F.3d 337, 340 (4th Cir. 2012) ().
At the first step in the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ determines whether the claimant is engaged in "substantial gainful activity." 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i), 416.920(a)(4)(i). If the claimant is not engaged in substantial gainful activity, the ALJ moves on to the second step.
At the second step, the ALJ considers the combined severity of the claimant's medically determinable physical and mental impairments. Id. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii). The ALJ gleans this information from the available medical evidence. See Mastro v. Apfel, 270 F.3d 171, 177 (4th Cir. 2001). An individual impairment or combination of impairments that is not classified as "severe" and does not satisfy the durational requirements will result in a finding of "not disabled." 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii); Mascio v. Colvin, 780 F.3d 632, 634-35 (4th Cir. 2015).
Similarly, at the third step, the ALJ determines whether the claimant's impairment or combination of impairments meets or is medically equal to the criteria of an impairment...
To continue reading
Request your trial