Feliciano v. Colvin

• Decision Date: 01 September 2015
• Docket Number: No. 3:14-1449,3:14-1449
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee
• Parties: YANITZA FELICIANO v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security

YANITZA FELICIANO v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security

No. 3:14-1449

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION

September 1, 2015

To: The Honorable Aleta A. Trauger, District Judge

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c) to obtain judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") denying Plaintiff's claim for Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB") and Supplemental Security Income ("SSI"), as provided by Title II, 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i) and 423(d), and Title XVI, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381 et seq., of the Social Security Act ("the Act"). The case is currently pending on Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the administrative record (Docket Entry No. 13), to which Defendant has filed a response (Docket Entry No. 17).

Upon review of the Administrative Record as a whole, the Court recommends that Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the administrative record (Docket Entry No. 14) be granted, the decision of the Social Security Administration be reversed, and this matter be remanded for further administrative proceedings consistent with this Report.

I. INTRODUCTION

In August 2010, Plaintiff protectively filed for DIB and SSI. See Transcript of the Administrative Record (Docket Entry No. 11),¹ at 79-80 and 167. She alleged a disability onset date of September 15, 2005.² AR 79-80 and 182. Plaintiff asserted that she was unable to work because of back pain, arthritis, carpal tunnel, diabetes, bipolar, and depression. AR 94.

Plaintiff's applications were denied initially and upon reconsideration. AR 90-105. Pursuant to her request for a hearing before an administrative law judge ("ALJ"), Plaintiff appeared with counsel and testified at a hearing before ALJ Renee S. Andrews-Turner on November 9, 2012. AR 34. On January 31, 2013, the ALJ issued a decision unfavorable to Plaintiff. AR 10. On March 17, 2013, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review of the ALJ's decision, AR 1-6, thereby making the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Commissioner. This civil action was thereafter timely filed, and the Court has jurisdiction. 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c).

II. THE ALJ'S FINDINGS

The ALJ issued an unfavorable decision on January 31, 2013. AR 10-33. Based upon the record, the ALJ made the following enumerated findings:

1. The claimant meets the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act through September 20, 2009.

2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since September 15, 2005, the alleged onset date (20 CFR 404.1571 et seq. and 416.971 et seq.).

3. The claimant has the following severe impairments: degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, adjustment disorder, and bipolar disorder (20 CFR 404.1520(c) and 416.920(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 light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b) except the claimant could lift and/or carry 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently; sit 6 to 8 hours out of 8 hours; stand and/or walk 2 to 4 hours out of 8 hours; frequently use her hand for reaching including overhead; frequently operate foot controls with either leg; occasionally balance, stoop, and crouch; never climb, kneel, and crawl; could operate a motor vehicle, tolerate occasional exposure to moving mechanical parts, pulmonary irritants, temperature extremes, and vibrations; and never be exposed to unprotected heights. The claimant is able to perform simple tasks, can maintain concentration for two hours at a time during an 8-hour workday, and can adapt to infrequent change.

***

6. The claimant is unable to perform any past relevant work (20 CFR 404.1565 and 416.965).

***

7. The claimant was born on October 20, 1980, was 24 years old, which is defined as a younger individual age 18-49, on the alleged disability onset date (20 CFR 404.1563 and 416.963).

8. The claimant has a limited (11th grade) education and is able to communicate in English (20 CFR 404.1564 and 416.964).

9. Transferability of job skills is not material to the determination of disability because using the Medical-Vocational Rules as a framework supports a finding that the claimant is "not disabled," whether or not the claimant has transferable job skills (See SSR 82-41 and 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2).

10. Considering the claimant's age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity, there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that the claimant can perform (20 CFR 404.1569, 404.1569(a), 416.969, and 416.969(a)).

***

11. The claimant has not been under a "disability" as defined in the Social Security Act from September 15, 2005 through the date of this decision (20 CFR 404.1520(g) and 416.920(g)).

AR 15-27.

III. REVIEW OF THE RECORD

The parties and the ALJ have thoroughly summarized and discussed the medical and testimonial evidence of the Administrative Record. Accordingly, the Court will discuss those matters only to the extent necessary to analyze the parties' arguments.

IV. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

A. Standard of Review

The determination of disability under the Act is an administrative decision. The only questions before this Court upon judicial review are: (i) whether the decision of the Commissioner is supported by substantial evidence and (ii) whether the Commissioner made legal errors in the process of reaching the decision. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). See Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401, 91 S. Ct. 1420, 28 L. Ed. 2d 842 (1971) (adopting and defining substantial evidence standard incontext of Social Security cases); Kyle v. Comm'r Soc. Sec., 609 F.3d 847, 854 (6th Cir. 2010); Landsaw v. Secretary, 803 F.2d 211, 213 (6th Cir. 1986).

Substantial evidence is defined as "more than a mere scintilla" and "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Richardson, 402 U.S. at 401 (quoting Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229, 59 S. Ct. 206, 83 L. Ed. 126 (1938)); Rogers v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234, 241 (6th Cir. 2007). The Commissioner's decision must be affirmed if it is supported by substantial evidence, "even if there is substantial evidence in the record that would have supported an opposite conclusion." Blakely v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399, 406 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Key v. Callahan, 109 F.3d 270, 273 (6th Cir. 1997)); Jones v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 336 F.3d 469, 477 (6th Cir. 2003); Her v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 203 F.3d 388, 389-90 (6th Cir. 1999).

The Court's review of the Commissioner's decision is limited to the record made in the administrative hearing process, Jones v. Secretary, 945 F.2d 1365, 1369 (6th Cir.1991), and a reviewing court may not try the case de novo, resolve conflicts in evidence, or decide questions of credibility. See Garner v. Heckler, 745 F.2d 383, 387 (6th Cir. 1984) (citing Myers v. Richardson, 471 F.2d 1265, 1268 (6th Cir. 1972)). The Court must accept the ALJ's explicit findings and final determination unless the record as a whole is without substantial evidence to support the ALJ's determination. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). See, e.g., Houston v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 736 F.2d 365, 366 (6th Cir. 1984).

B. Determining Disability at the Administrative Level

The claimant has the ultimate burden of establishing an entitlement to benefits by proving his or her "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). The asserted impairment(s) must be demonstrated by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(3) and 1382c(a)(3)(D); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1512(a), (c), 404.1513(d). "Substantial gainful activity" not only includes previous work performed by Plaintiff, but also, considering Plaintiff's age, education, and work experience, any other relevant work that exists in the national economy in significant numbers regardless of whether such work exists in the immediate area in which Plaintiff lives, or whether a specific job vacancy exists, or whether Plaintiff would be hired if he or she applied. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A).

In the proceedings before the Social Security Administration, the Commissioner must employ a five-step, sequential evaluation process in considering the issue of the claimant's alleged disability. See Heston v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 245 F.3d 528, 534 (6th Cir. 2001); Abbot v. Sullivan, 905 F.2d 918, 923 (6th Cir. 1990)). First, the claimant must show that he or she is not engaged in "substantial gainful activity" at the time disability benefits are sought. Cruse v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 502 F.3d 532, 539 (6th Cir. 2007); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(b), 416.920(b). Second, the claimant must show that he or she suffers from a severe impairment that meets the twelve month durational requirement. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii). See also Edwards v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 113 Fed. Appx. 83, 85 (6th Cir. 2004). Third, if the claimant has satisfied the first two steps, the claimant is presumed disabled without further inquiry, regardless of age, education or workexperience, if the impairment at issue either appears on the regulatory list of impairments that are sufficiently severe as to prevent any gainful employment or equals a listed impairment. Combs v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., ...