Freeman v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
| Decision Date | 31 March 2014 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-CV-00065 |
| Parties | CURTIS HUDSON FREEMAN, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
(Chief Judge Conner)
The above-captioned action seeks review of the Commissioner of Social Security's ("Commissioner") decision denying plaintiff Curtis Hudson Freeman's ("Freeman") claim for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Presently before the court is Freeman's appeal from an administrative law judge's ("ALJ") decision upholding the denial of social security benefits. (Doc. 1). For the reasons that follow, the court will remand the above-captioned matter to the ALJ for further proceedings.
Plaintiff Curtis Hudson Freeman was born on March 18, 1969, and he was 39 years old on his disability onset date.1 (Doc. 8-2 at 20, 25, 37).2 Freeman currently lives with his mother. (Id. at 60). He has a high school education and earned a certificate for medical coding and billing. (Id. at 25, 38).
On March 18, 2011, Freeman protectively3 filed an initial application for disability insurance benefits ("DIB")4 and supplemental security income ("SSI"),5alleging disability since April 30, 2008. (Id. at 14). The Commissioner denied his initial application for social security benefits on August 11, 2011. (Id.) Freeman subsequently filed a written request for a hearing. (Id.) On June 4, 2012, Freeman appeared with counsel and testified in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania at a video hearing conducted by an ALJ in Chicago, Illinois. (Id.)
Freeman alleges disability based upon degenerative disc disease of the neck and back, degenerative joint disease of the left knee, depression, anxiety, and migraines. (Id. at 37). At the hearing, Freeman testified that he has held mostly management positions for the past fifteen years. (Id. at 38-40). Freeman's previous positions include grocery store manager, office manager, medical billing manager, dispatch supervisor, and outreach field representative. (Id. at 38). In 2010, Freeman was employed part-time as a receptionist in the apartment building where he lived for about two to three months. (Id. at 42-43). For approximately five weeks, Freeman also worked for a company owned by his friends one hour a day making deposits at the bank. (Id. at 43-44). Apparently, Freeman was paid for fifty hours a week even though he only worked one hour a day. (Id. at 77-78). Finally, Freeman worked for The Melting Pot restaurant for one day as a prep cook and dishwasher, but he could not return to work due to his back problems. (Id. at 45).
With respect to his physical impairments, Freeman testified that he first had intense pain in his neck and eventually had surgery on his cervical spine in 2011.(Id. at 46-47). Freeman alleges that his neck problems have worsened since the surgery. (Id. at 47). He has difficulty turning his head and experiences sharp, stabbing pain radiating down both arms and hands, with the left side worse than the right side. (Id. at 47-48). As a result of the pain in his upper extremities, Freeman also has difficulty reaching overhead as well as some difficulty reaching and grasping objects in front of him or to his side. (Id. at 48-50). Moreover, Freeman cannot lift anything over five pounds and uses special software that converts speech into typing in order to operate a computer. (Id. at 49-51).
Freeman further testified that he has bulging and herniated disks in his back, but he fears that another spinal surgery will make his back problems worse. (Id. at 51). Due to his back problems, Freeman cannot sit for more than ten to twenty minutes, stand for more than five or ten minutes without support, or walk more than 100 feet. (Id. at 51, 53-54). He has fallen several times because his legs give out from pain extending from his lower back into both legs, with his left side worse than his right side. (Id. at 52-53).
Freeman also reported that he has had operations on both of his knees. (Id. at 53-54). Freeman had surgery on his right knee in 2006 after a fall and on his left knee for a meniscus tear from an automobile accident in 2008. (Id. at 53). He noted that he still has a burning sensation in his knee joints, and his knees sometimes lock up and cause him to fall. (Id. at 54-55).
In addition to his physical impairments, Freeman suffers from depression and anxiety. (Id. at 55). He takes medication to control his symptoms and sees apsychiatrist once a month and a therapist two or three times per week. (Id.) However, the main symptom Freeman noted is excessive sleepiness due to his medications. (Id. at 56-57). Freeman also reported thoughts about self-harming, lack of appetite, and crying every day. (Id. at 56-57, 60). In 2009, he was hospitalized for a suicide attempt using alcohol and prescription medication. (Id. at 89-90). While Freeman was incarcerated for fraudulent checks, he was on suicide watch because he did not take his medication. (Id. at 67-68, 90). Freeman also stated that he experiences panic attacks five times a week, often from crowds of more than seven or eight people, and it usually takes him ten to thirty minutes to calm down. (Id. at 58-60). Lastly, Freeman indicated that he suffers from migraines two to three times a day and becomes ill and sensitive to light. (Id. at 72-73).
On a day-to-day basis, Freeman testified that he requires his mother's assistance for most household chores, such as washing laundry, making his bed, and running errands. (Id. at 62-66). Freeman also reported that he gets confused and lacks the stamina and focus for basic activities. (Id. at 70-72). Although his medical records indicate alcohol, marijuana, and prescription medication abuse, Freeman denies any problems with substance abuse. (Id. at 41, 79-80).
On August 17, 2012, the ALJ issued a decision denying Freeman's claim for social security benefits. (See id. at 11-32). Freeman appealed the ALJ's decision to the Appeals Counsel on September 4, 2012, (see id. at 7-10), and the Appeals Counsel denied the appeal on November 23, 2012. (See id. at 1-6).
On January 10, 2013, Freeman filed a pro se complaint in the instant action to appeal the final administrative decision denying his application for social security benefits pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1383(c)(3).6 (Doc. 1). On March 18, 2013, the Commissioner filed an answer (Doc. 7) to Freeman's complaint and provided the administrative record for the court's review. (Doc. 8). Upon further briefing by the parties, the instant action is ripe for disposition. (See Docs. 9, 10, 11).
In reviewing a social security appeal, the court may conduct a plenary review of all legal issues decided by the Commissioner. See Poulos v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 474 F.3d 88, 91 (3d Cir. 2007); Schaudeck v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 181 F.3d 429, 431 (3d Cir. 1999); Krysztoforski v. Chater, 55 F.3d 857, 858 (3d Cir. 1995). The court's review of findings of fact pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), however, is limited to determining whether the findings are supported by "substantial evidence." 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Johnson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 529 F.3d 198, 200 (3d Cir. 2008);Knepp v. Apfel, 204 F.3d 78, 83 (3d Cir. 2000); Brown v. Bowen, 845 F.2d 1211, 1213 (3d Cir. 1988). Factual findings which are supported by substantial evidence must be upheld. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Rutherford v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 546, 552 (3d Cir. 2005) (); Fargnoli v. Massanari, 247 F.3d 34, 38 (3d Cir. 2001) (); Cotter v. Harris, 642 F.2d 700, 704 (3d Cir. 1981) ().
Substantial evidence "does not mean a large or considerable amount of evidence, but rather 'such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.'" Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 564-65 (1988) (quoting Consol. Edison Co. v. N.L.R.B., 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)); Johnson, 529 F.3d at 200; Hartranft v. Apfel, 181 F.3d 358, 360 (3d Cir. 1999). The Third Circuit has described substantial evidence as more than a mere scintilla, but substantial evidence may be less than a preponderance of the evidence. Brown, 845 F.2d at 1213. In an adequately developed factual record, substantial evidence may be "something less than the weight of the evidence, and the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency's finding from being supported by substantial evidence." Consolo v. Fed. Mar. Comm'n, 383 U.S. 607, 620 (1966).
Substantial evidence exists only "in relationship to all the other evidence in the record," Cotter, 642 F.2d at 706, and "must take into account whatever in the record fairly detracts from its weight." Universal Camera Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 340 U.S. 474, 488 (1971). "When a conflict in the evidence exists, the ALJ may choose whom to credit but 'cannot reject evidence for no reason or for the wrong reason.'" Plummer v. Apfel, 186 F.3d 422, 429 (3d Cir. 1999) (quoting Mason v. Shalala, 994 F.2d 1058, 1066 (3d Cir. 1993)). The ALJ must indicate which evidence was accepted, which evidence was rejected, and the reasons for rejecting certain evidence. Burnett v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 220 F.3d 112, 121 (3d Cir. 2000); Cotter, 642 F.2d at 706-07. Therefore, the court must scrutinize the record as a whole on appeal. Smith v. Califano, 637 F.2d 968, 970 (3d Cir. 1981); Dobrowolsky v. Califano, 606 F.2d 403, 407 (3d Cir. 1979).
To receive disability benefits, a plaintiff must demonstrate an "inability to engage in...
To continue reading
Request your trial