Fett v. Colvin

• Decision Date: 15 October 2015
• Docket Number: No. C 14-3034-MWB,C 14-3034-MWB
• Parties: VICKIE (NICHOLS) FETT, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

VICKIE (NICHOLS) FETT, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

No. C 14-3034-MWB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CENTRAL DIVISION

October 15, 2015

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON THE MERITS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 2

A. Background .......................................................................... 2

B. The ALJ's Findings ................................................................ 3

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS ........................................................................ 5

A. Applicable Standards ............................................................... 5

1. Disability determinations and the burden of proof ................... 5

2. The substantial evidence standard of review .......................... 8

B. Application Of The Standards .................................................... 9

1. Severity of mental impairments ........................................ 10

a. Applicable standards ............................................ 10

b. Medical evidence ................................................. 11

c. The ALJ's findings .............................................. 23

d. Analysis ............................................................ 24

2. Evaluation of subjective allegations .................................. 27

a. Applicable Standards ............................................ 27

b. The ALJ's findings .............................................. 29

c. Analysis ............................................................ 32

i. Mental impairments ..................................... 32

ii. Physical Impairments ................................... 34

3. Development of the record .............................................. 36

a. Applicable Standards ............................................ 36b. Analysis ............................................................ 37

4. Other source evidence—chiropractor

................................. 40

a. Applicable standards ............................................ 40

b. The ALJ's Findings ............................................. 42

c. Analysis ............................................................ 42

III. CONCLUSION ............................................................................ 44

This matter is before me pursuant to Vickie Fett's application for Disability Insurance benefits under Title II of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 401 et seq. Fett seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the Commissioner) denying her application for benefits. Fett argues that the administrative record (AR) does not contain substantial evidence to support the Commissioner's decision that she was not disabled during the relevant period of time.

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Background

Fett was 50 years old at the time of the ALJ hearing. She dropped out of high school but received her GED. Fett has had intermittent employment through her life, holding a wide variety of jobs, including as a cashier, laborer, and solderer. At the time of the hearing, Fett was married, with adult children. Fett filed an application for disability insurance benefits based primarily on back problems, neck problems, and anxiety issues.

Fett filed her application for disability on April 13, 2011. Fett was denied initially on June 9, 2011, and on reconsideration on July 29, 2011. She requested an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) hearing, which was held on January 3, 2013. On January 23, 2013, ALJ John E. Sandbothe entered a decision denying disability benefits. On February 13, 2013, Fett filed a request for review, which the Appeals Council denied on April 8, 2014. Thus, the decision of the ALJ is a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. Fett timely filed the present complaint on June 9, 2014. (docket no. 1).

On January 26, 2015, Judge O'Brien held a telephone hearing on Fett's complaint. This case was reassigned to me on August 20, 2015. I have reviewed the record, along with the audio recording of the hearing, and now enter the following.

B. The ALJ's Findings

In this case, the ALJ found as follows:

(1) The claimant last met the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act on March 31, 2008. The claimant did not engage in substantial gainful activity during the period from her alleged onset date of July 15, 2005, through her date last insured of March 31, 2008. (20 C.F.R. § 416.971 et seq.).

(2) The claimant has the following severe impairments: degenerate disc disease status post fusion (20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c)).

(3) The claimant's medically determinable mental impairment of depression and anxiety did not cause more than minimal limitation in the claimant's ability to perform basic mental work activities and was therefore non-severe.

(4) The claimant's history of marijuana use and current alcohol use do not cause more than minimal limitations in her ability to perform basic work activity. As such,the claimant's substance abuse is found not material to the determination of disability.

(5) 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 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 404.1525 and 404.1526).

(6) Applying "paragraph B," the claimant has no difficulties in the activities of daily living, no difficulties in social functioning, mild difficulties with regard to concentration, persistence or pace; and no episodes of decompensation. Because the claimant's mental impairments do not cause at least two "marked" limitations or one "marked" limitation and "repeated" episodes of decompensation, each of extended duration, the "paragraph B" criteria are not satisfied.

(7) Through the date last insured, the claimant did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part § 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 404.1525 and 404.1526). The claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform the following: lift 10 pounds frequently and 20 pounds occasionally and only occasionally climb, balance, stoop, bend, kneel, crouch or crawl. She is limited to simple, routine or repetitive work.

(8) The claimant's medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms; however, the claimant's statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms are not entirely credible.

(9) The opinion of the state agency medical consultant was entitled to substantial weight.

(10) The claimant was capable of performing past relevant work as a solderer (light, unskilled) and as a cashier(light, unskilled). This work did not require the performance of work-related activities precluded by the claimant's residual functional capacity.

(11) The claimant was not under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, from July 15, 2005, through the date last insured, March 31, 2008 (20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f)).

AR 16-20.

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS

A. Applicable Standards

1. Disability determinations and the burden of proof

A disability is defined as 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 that has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than twelve months. 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A); 20 C.F.R. § 416.905. A claimant has a disability when the claimant is "not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his 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).

To determine whether a claimant has a disability within the meaning of the Social Security Act, the Commissioner follows a five-step sequential evaluation process outlined in the regulations. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920; see Kirby v. Astrue, 500 F.3d 705, 707 (8th Cir. 2007). First, the Commissioner will consider a claimant's work activity. If the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity, then the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(i).

Second, if the claimant is not engaged in substantial gainful activity, the Commissioner looks to see "whether the claimant has a severe impairment that significantly limits the claimant's physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities." Dixon v. Barnhart, 353 F.3d 602, 605 (8th Cir. 2003). "An impairment is not severe if it amounts only to a slight abnormality that would not significantly limit the claimant's physical or mental ability to do basic work activities." Kirby, 500 F.3d at 707; see 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(c), 416.921(a).

The ability to do basic work activities is defined as "the abilities and aptitudes necessary to do most jobs." 20 C.F.R. § 416.921(b). These abilities and aptitudes 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 simple instructions; (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. § 416.921(b)(1)-(6); see Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 141, 107 S. Ct. 2287, 2291 (1987). "The sequential evaluation process may be terminated at step two only when the claimant's impairment or combination of impairments would have no more than a minimal impact on her ability to work." Page v. Astrue, 484 F.3d 1040, 1043 (8th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Third, if the claimant has a severe...