Cowan v. Colvin
| Decision Date | 27 March 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 1:14CV16 TIA,1:14CV16 TIA |
| Parties | SHEILA R. COWAN, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
This is an action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for judicial review of the Commissioner's final decision denying Sheila R. Cowan's application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401, et seq. All matters are pending before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge, with consent of the parties, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Because the final decision is not supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole, the decision of the Commissioner is reversed.
Plaintiff Sheila R. Cowan filed her application for disability insurance benefits (DIB) on August 15, 2011, alleging that she became disabled on September 17, 2007, because of back problems and hand problems. (Tr. 132-38,203.) On November 3, 2011, the Social Security Administration denied plaintiff's claim for benefits. (Tr. 66-76, 79-83.) Upon plaintiff's request, a hearing was held before an administrative law judge (ALJ) on November 26, 2012, at which plaintiff and a vocational expert testified. (Tr. 27-65.) On January 3, 2013, the ALJ issued a decision denying plaintiff's claim for benefits, finding plaintiff able to perform work as it exists in significant numbers in the national economy. (Tr. 7-22.) On December 12, 2013, the Appeals Council denied plaintiff's request for review of the ALJ's decision. (Tr. 1-4.) The ALJ's determination thus stands as the final decision of the Commissioner. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
In the instant action for judicial review, plaintiff raises numerous claims arguing that the ALJ's decision is not supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Specifically, plaintiff contends that the ALJ failed to accord proper weight to the opinion of plaintiff's treating physician, Dr. Watkins, and erred in analyzing the credibility of plaintiff's subjective complaints. Plaintiff further contends that the ALJ's hypothetical question posed to the vocational expert failed to include all of plaintiff's established limitations. Finally, plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred in finding plaintiff not to be disabled at Step 5 of the sequential analysis inasmuch as he failed to acknowledge the shift in the burden of proof at this step and failed to resolve a conflict between the vocational expert's testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) with respect to the jobsthe expert testified that plaintiff could perform. Plaintiff requests that the final decision be reversed and that the matter be remanded for further consideration. Because the ALJ erred in his analysis of plaintiff's credibility as well as other evidence of record supporting his residual functional capacity (RFC) assessment, the matter will be remanded for further proceedings.
At the hearing on November 26, 2012, plaintiff testified in response to questions posed by the ALJ and counsel.
At the time of the hearing, plaintiff was forty-six years of age. Plaintiff is married and lives in a mobile home. Her husband works in another state. (Tr. 32-33.) Plaintiff stands five feet, eleven inches tall and weighs 195 pounds. Plaintiff is right-handed. (Tr. 44.) Plaintiff went to school to ninth grade and later obtained her GED. She later received training to earn a commercial driver's license and she also received training to be a correctional officer. (Tr. 33-34.) Plaintiff has had Medicaid assistance since May 2012. She previously received worker's compensation for her disability. (Tr. 34-35.)
Plaintiff's Work History Report shows plaintiff to have worked as a laborer in a factory from 1999 to 2000, in 2002, and again in 2006. From 2003 to 2005, plaintiff worked as a corrections officer in a prison. From 2006 to 2007, plaintiffworked as a welder in a factory. From February to March 2011, plaintiff worked as a caregiver in home health care. (Tr. 224.) Plaintiff testified that she is no longer able to work because of surgeries performed on her hands and because of back trouble caused by an accident that recently occurred in May. (Tr. 38.)
Plaintiff testified that she has had surgeries for carpal tunnel and trigger fingers and experiences pain and limitation in both hands as a result. Plaintiff also has a partial amputation of the right ring finger, with the tip having been amputated while she was in school. Plaintiff also underwent reconstructive surgery in the palm. Plaintiff testified that the pain is worse in her left hand. Plaintiff testified that the pain radiates from the palm of her hand to the fingers. She cannot straighten her fingers. Her pain is constant and worsens with cold and when she picks up, squeezes, or grabs things. Plaintiff's hands shake because of the nerve damage. Plaintiff has wrist braces that she wears in the winter months when she experiences cramping the most. (Tr. 38-40, 45-46, 48-51, 52.)
Plaintiff testified that she participated in physical therapy on a daily basis for her hand condition from 2007 to 2010 but obtained no long term benefit. She takes hydrocodone for pain every four hours, but the effect of the medication lasts for only a couple of hours. Plaintiff testified that she also gets temporary relief by soaking her hands in warm wax. Plaintiff no longer sees a physician for her hand condition because she was advised that nothing more could be done given theextent of the tissue damage. Plaintiff testified that she drops things. Plaintiff also testified that her hand condition renders her unable to use a keyboard or perform a job that would require putting parts together or handling money because of her inability to straighten the fingers of her left hand. Plaintiff also testified that being required to perform tasks on a repetitive basis with her hands would cause too much pain. (Tr. 38-40, 45-46, 48-51, 52.)
Plaintiff testified that she injured her back the previous May when she was involved in an accident and struck a deer. Plaintiff suffered nerve damage, and she experiences pain in her low back that radiates down her left leg. Plaintiff takes medication for the condition. Plaintiff also uses a four-pronged cane because she cannot put too much weight on her left side. Plaintiff testified that recent epidural steroid injections did not help the pain. Plaintiff testified that her legs also give way because of this impairment and she has fallen on four occasions. Plaintiff recently suffered a head laceration because of a fall. (Tr. 40-43.)
Plaintiff testified that she was currently taking Vicodin in relation to recent surgery for removal of a lipoma. (Tr. 41.)
Plaintiff testified that her overall pain affects her ability to focus and pay attention because she gets stressed and aggravated when the pain stops her from doing things she should be able to do for herself. (Tr. 51-52.)
As to her exertional abilities, plaintiff testified that she can walk abouttwenty-five feet before needing to stop and rest due to pain in her leg. Plaintiff can stand about fifteen to twenty minutes and sit for thirty-five to forty minutes. Plaintiff cannot bend because of her low back condition. Plaintiff also has difficulty reaching above her head because of a shock-like pain that radiates from her back. Plaintiff testified that she can lift about five pounds on a regular basis. (Tr. 43, 50.)
Plaintiff testified that her daughter visits once a week to do household chores and go to the grocery store for her. (Tr. 44.)
Jan Hatcher, a vocational expert, testified in response to questions posed by the ALJ and counsel.
Ms. Hatcher classified plaintiff's past work as a machine sorter as light and unskilled; as a coating machine operator and production welder as medium and unskilled; and as a corrections officer as medium and semi-skilled. (Tr. 53.)
The ALJ asked Ms. Hatcher to assume an individual who could perform a range of sedentary work in that she could lift up to ten pounds occasionally, stand or walk two hours per eight-hour day, and sit six hours per eight-hour day. The ALJ asked Ms. Hatcher to further assume the person could frequently engage in handling, fingering, and feeling bilaterally. Ms. Hatcher testified that such a person could not perform any of plaintiff's past relevant work but could performother work in the national economy, such as surveillance system monitor, of which 350 such jobs exist in the State of Missouri and 25,000 nationally; credit checker, of which 170 such jobs exist in the State of Missouri and 24,000 nationally; and egg processor, of which 620 such jobs exist in the State of Missouri and 27,400 nationally. (Tr. 54.)
The ALJ then asked Ms. Hatcher to assume the same individual but that she was limited to only occasional handling, fingering, and feeling, to which Ms. Hatcher testified that such a person could continue to perform work as a surveillance system monitor and credit checker. (Tr. 54.)
The ALJ then asked Ms. Hatcher to assume a person limited to sedentary work who could never handle, finger, or feel bilaterally. Ms. Hatcher testified that the DOT defined the job of surveillance system monitor as one with no significant performance of such activities. (Tr. 55.)
Ms. Hatcher also testified generally that a person could miss work for pain or other symptoms about eight to ten days a year, or less than one day a month; and that a person whose symptoms caused them to be less productive than average, such as at a rate of eighty percent or less, could not engage in competitive employment. (Tr. 55.)
In response to counsel's questions, Ms. Hatcher testified that a person requiring a sit/stand option who needed to change positions every thirty minutescould continue to perform the jobs to which she previously testified....
To continue reading
Request your trial