Engledow v. Saul

Decision Date16 February 2021
Docket NumberNo. 20-CV-00004-LRR,20-CV-00004-LRR
PartiesALISON J. ENGLEDOW, Claimant, v. ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Alison J. Engledow ("Claimant") seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("the Commissioner") denying her application for disability insurance benefits ("DIB") under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. Sections 401-34. Claimant contends that the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") erred in determining that she was not disabled. For the reasons that follow, I recommend that the Commissioner's decision be affirmed.

I. BACKGROUND

I adopt the facts set forth in the Parties' Joint Statement of Facts (Doc. 11) and only summarize the pertinent facts here. Claimant was born June 25, 1984. (AR1 at 163.) Claimant has at least a high school education and is able to communicate in English. (Id. at 22, 207.) She allegedly became disabled due to depression and anxiety. (Id. at 206.) Claimant's onset of disability date was October 31, 2014. (Id. at 163.) Claimantfiled an application for DIB on August 29, 2016. (Id. at 11.) Her claim was denied originally and on reconsideration. (Id. at 92-95, 104-07.) A video hearing was held on August 24, 2018, with Claimant and her attorney, Corbett Luedeman, in Coralville, Iowa and ALJ Michael Comisky and vocational expert ("VE") Marianne Lumpe in Kansas City, Missouri. (Id. at 29-61.) Claimant and the VE testified. (Id. at 36-60.) The ALJ issued an unfavorable decision on November 27, 2018. (Id. at 11-23.)

Claimant requested review and the Appeals Council denied review on November 5, 2019. (Id. at 1-5.) Accordingly, the ALJ's decision stands as the final administrative ruling in the matter and became the final decision of the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.1481.

On January 13, 2020, Claimant timely filed her complaint in this Court. (Doc. 3.) On August 4, 2020, all briefing was completed and the Honorable Linda R. Reade referred the case to me for a Report and Recommendation.

II. DISABILITY DETERMINATIONS AND THE BURDEN OF PROOF

A disability is the "inability 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." 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A). A claimant has a disability when, due to physical or mental impairments, the claimant

is not only unable to do [the claimant's] previous work but cannot, considering [the claimant's] age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists . . . in significant numbers either in the region where such individual lives or in several regions of the country.

42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(2)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(B). A claimant is not disabled if the claimant is able to do work that exists in the national economy but is unemployed due to an inability to find work, lack of options in the local area, technological changes in a particularindustry, economic downturns, employer hiring practices, or other factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1566(c).

To determine whether a claimant has a disability within the meaning of the Social Security Act, the Commissioner follows the five-step sequential evaluation process outlined in the regulations. Dixon v. Barnhart, 353 F.3d 602, 605 (8th Cir. 2003). At steps one through four, the claimant has the burden to prove he or she is disabled; at step five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to prove there are jobs available in the national economy. Moore v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 520, 523 (8th Cir. 2009).

At step one, the ALJ will consider whether a claimant is engaged in "substantial gainful activity." Id. If so, the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(i). "Substantial activity is significant physical or mental work that is done on a full- or part-time basis. Gainful activity is simply work that is done for compensation." Dukes v. Barnhart, 436 F.3d 923, 927 (8th Cir. 2006) (citing Comstock v. Chater, 91 F.3d 1143, 1145 (8th Cir. 1996); 20 C.F.R. § 416.972(a),(b)).

If the claimant is not engaged in substantial gainful activity, at step two, the ALJ decides if the claimant's impairments are severe. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii). If the impairments are not severe, then the claimant is not disabled. Id. An impairment is not severe if it does not significantly limit a claimant's "physical or mental ability to do basic work activities." Id. § 416.920(c). The ability to do basic work activities means the ability and aptitude necessary to perform most jobs. Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 141 (1987) (quoting 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1521(b), 416.921(b)). These include

(1) physical functions such as walking, standing, sitting, lifting, pushing, pulling, reaching, carrying, or handling; (2) capacities for seeing, hearing, and speaking; (3) understanding, carrying out, and remembering simpleinstructions; (4) use of judgment; (5) responding appropriately to supervision, co-workers, and usual work situations; and (6) dealing with changes in a routine work setting.

Id. (quotation omitted) (numbers added; internal brackets omitted).

If the claimant has a severe impairment, at step three, the ALJ will determine the medical severity of the impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii). If the impairment meets or equals one of the impairments listed in the regulations ("the listings"), then "the claimant is presumptively disabled without regard to age, education, and work experience." Tate v. Apfel, 167 F.3d 1191, 1196 (8th Cir. 1999) (quotation omitted).

If the claimant's impairment is severe, but it does not meet or equal an impairment in the listings, at step four, the ALJ will assess the claimant's residual functional capacity ("RFC") and the demands of the claimant's past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iv). RFC is what the claimant can still do despite his or her limitations. Guilliams v. Barnhart, 393 F.3d 798, 801 (8th Cir. 2005) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a), 416.945(a)). RFC is based on all relevant evidence and the claimant is responsible for providing the evidence the Commissioner will use to determine the RFC. Eichelberger v. Barnhart, 390 F.3d 584, 591 (8th Cir. 2004). "Past relevant work" is any work the claimant performed within the fifteen years prior to his application that was substantial gainful activity and lasted long enough for the claimant to learn how to do it. 20 C.F.R. § 416.960(b)(1). If a claimant retains enough RFC to perform past relevant work, then the claimant is not disabled. Id. § 416.920(a)(4)(iv).

At step five, if the claimant's RFC will not allow the claimant to perform past relevant work, then the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show there is other work the claimant can do, given the claimant's RFC, age, education, and work experience. Id. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(v), 416.960(c)(2). The ALJ must show not only that the claimant'sRFC will allow the claimant to do other work, but also that other work exists in significant numbers in the national economy. Eichelberger, 390 F.3d at 591 (citation omitted).

A. The ALJ'S Findings

The ALJ made the following findings at each step of the five-step process regarding Claimant's disability status. As a threshold matter, the ALJ found that Claimant met the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act through December 31, 2019. (AR at 13.)

At step one, the ALJ found that Claimant had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since her alleged onset of disability date of October 31, 2014. (Id. at 14.)

At step two, the ALJ found that Claimant suffered from the following severe impairments: degenerative disc disease, asthma, obesity, carpal tunnel syndrome, affective disorder, and anxiety disorder. (Id.) The ALJ found Claimant's hypertension, diabetes mellitus, gastroesophageal reflux disease, polycystic ovary syndrome, fatty liver, hyperlipidemia, and acute otitis externa to be nonsevere impairments. (Id.)

At step three, the ALJ found that Claimant did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or equaled a presumptively disabling impairment listed in the regulations, either when considered singly or in combination. (Id.)

The ALJ evaluated Claimant's claims under listings 1.04 (disorders of the spine), 3.03 (asthma), 12.04 (depressive, bipolar and related disorders), and 12.06 (anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorders). (Id. at 14-16.) The ALJ also considered Claimant's "extreme level of obesity," with a BMI of 45.4, and asthma when crafting the RFC and reduced the RFC to the performance of light work with additional postural and environmental limitations in consideration of those impairments. (Id. at 18, 21.)

At step four, the ALJ found that Claimant had the following RFC:

[T]he claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) except the claimant can lift or carry 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently; can push or pull in the limitsfor lifting and carrying; can occasionally climb ramps and stairs; cannot climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds in a workplace setting; can occasionally balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl; can stand or walk for six hours in an eight-hour workday; can sit for six hours in an eight-hour workday; should avoid concentrated exposure to high temperatures and inhaled pulmonary irritants such as fumes, odors, dust, gases, and poor ventilation; can work at moderate noise levels; can understand, remember, and carry out moderately complex work instructions and tasks at a [sic] SVP 4 level; can have occasional contact with coworkers, supervisors, and the general public; and should not work with the general-public as a primary job duty.

(Id. at 16.) The ALJ also found that Claimant was unable to perform her past relevant work. (Id. at...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT