Garrett v. Colvin
| Decision Date | 06 July 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. C14-4095,C14-4095 |
| Parties | THAD LOUIS GARRETT, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
I. INTRODUCTION ...................................... 2
II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ............................ 2
III. PRINCIPLES OF REVIEW ................................ 3
IV. FACTS .............................................. 5
V. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ................................ 13
VI. CONCLUSION ....................................... 35
VII. RECOMMENDATION .................................. 36
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter comes before the Court on the Complaint (docket number 3) filed by Plaintiff Thad Louis Garrett on October 31, 2014, requesting judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner's decision to deny his applications for Title II disability insurance benefits and Title XVI supplemental security income ("SSI") benefits. Garrett asks the Court to reverse the decision of the Social Security Commissioner ("Commissioner") and order the Commissioner to provide him disability insurance benefits and SSI benefits. In the alternative, Garrett requests the Court to remand this matter for further proceedings.
II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On June 28, 2011, Garrett applied for both disability insurance benefits and SSI benefits. In his applications, Garrett alleged an inability to work since November 15, 2009 due to depression, diabetes, and degenerative changes in his spine. Garrett's applications were denied on October 11, 2011. On December 21, 2011, his applications were denied on reconsideration. On February 25, 2013, Garrett appeared via video conference with his attorney before Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") David G. Buell for an administrative hearing. Garrett and vocational expert Carma A. Mitchell testified at the hearing. In a decision dated April 25, 2013, the ALJ denied Garrett's claims. The ALJ determined that Garrett was not disabled and not entitled to disability insurance benefits or SSI benefits because he was functionally capable of performing work that exists insignificant numbers in the national economy. Garrett appealed the ALJ's decision. On September 12, 2014, the Appeals Council denied Garrett's request for review. Consequently, the ALJ's April 25, 2013 decision was adopted as the Commissioner's final decision.
On October 31, 2014, Garrett filed this action for judicial review. The Commissioner filed an Answer on January 2, 2015. On January 30, 2015, Garrett filed a brief arguing that there is not substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ's finding that he is not disabled and that he is functionally capable of performing other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy. On March 20, 2015, the Commissioner filed a responsive brief arguing that the ALJ's decision was correct and asking the Court to affirm the ALJ's decision. On March 23, 2015, Garrett filed a reply brief. On March 25, 2015, Judge Mark W. Bennett referred this matter to a magistrate judge for issuance of a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
III. PRINCIPLES OF REVIEW
Title 42, United States Code, Section 405(g) provides that the Commissioner's final determination following an administrative hearing not to award disability insurance benefits is subject to judicial review. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3), the Commissioner's final determination after an administrative hearing not to award SSI benefits is subject to judicial review to the same extent as provided in 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3). Title 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) provides the Court with the power to: "[E]nter . . . a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner . . . with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing." 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). "The findings of the Commissioner . . . as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive . . ." Id.
The Court "'must affirm the Commissioner's decision if it is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.'" Bernard v. Colvin, 774 F.3d 482, 486 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Pelkey v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 575, 577 (8th Cir. 2006)).Substantial evidence is defined as less than a preponderance of the evidence, but is relevant evidence a "'reasonable mind would find adequate to support the commissioner's conclusion.'" Grable v. Colvin, 770 F.3d 1196, 1201 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Davis v. Apfel, 239 F.3d 962, 966 (8th Cir. 2011)).
In determining whether the ALJ's decision meets this standard, the Court considers "all of the evidence that was before the ALJ, but it [does] not re-weigh the evidence." Vester v. Barnhart, 416 F.3d 886, 889 (8th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). The Court not only considers the evidence which supports the ALJ's decision, but also the evidence that detracts from his or her decision. Perks v. Astrue, 687 F.3d 1086, 1091 (8th Cir. 2012); see also Cox v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 614, 617 (8th Cir. 2007) (). In Culbertson v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 934, 939 (8th Cir. 1994), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals explained this standard as follows:
This standard is 'something less than the weight of the evidence and it allows for the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions, thus it embodies a zone of choice within which the [Commissioner] may decide to grant or deny benefits without being subject to reversal on appeal.'
Id. (quoting Turley v. Sullivan, 939 F.2d 524, 528 (8th Cir. 1991), in turn quoting Bland v. Bowen, 861 F.2d 533, 535 (8th Cir. 1988)). In Buckner v. Astrue, 646 F.3d 549 (8th Cir. 2011), the Eighth Circuit further explained that a court "'will not disturb the denial of benefits so long as the ALJ's decision falls within the available 'zone of choice.'" Id. at 556 (quoting Bradley v. Astrue, 528 F.3d 1113, 1115 (8th Cir. 2008)). "'An ALJ's decision is not outside that zone of choice simply because [a court] might have reached a different conclusion had [the court] been the initial finder of fact.'" Id. Therefore, "even if inconsistent conclusions may be drawn from the evidence, the agency's decision will be upheld if it is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole." Guilliams v.Barnhart, 393 F.3d 798, 801 (8th Cir. 2005) (citing Chamberlain v. Shalala, 47 F.3d 1489, 1493 (8th Cir. 1995)); see also Draper v. Colvin, 779 F.3d 556, 559 (8th Cir. 2015) ( ); Cline v. Colvin, 771 F.3d 1098, 1102 (8th Cir. 2014) ( ).
IV. FACTS
Garrett was born in 1972. He is a high school graduate. Following high school, Garrett also attended one year of college. In the past, he has worked as material handler, stock clerk, and laborer in the meat packaging industry.
At the administrative hearing, the ALJ asked Garrett to describe his typical day. Garrett responded that he generally wakes up around 7:00 a.m., gets his daughter ready for school, takes her to school, sits at home watching television, makes lunch, takes a nap, and picks his daughter up from school. Garrett also stated that about once per week he does household chores like washing dishes or doing the laundry. According to Garrett, at various times, he also receives help from his parents completing household chores.
Next, the ALJ inquired about Garrett's lower extremity problems. Garrett testified that he has undergone multiple left ankle surgeries, and his left ankle continues to bother him. He also stated that he has problems with his legs due to neuropathy and diabetes. He estimated that he could walk at a slow pace for "maybe" five to ten minutes.
Turning to his upper extremities, the ALJ asked Garrett to describe his problems with his arms and hands. Garrett explained that he has undergone carpal tunnel surgery and elbow surgery in the past. More recently, he also had left shoulder surgery. He stated that he does not have "a lot of strength" in his elbows, and his hands often "go to sleep a lot."
Lastly, the ALJ and Garrett discussed his difficulties with...
To continue reading
Request your trial