Gholston v. Colvin

• Decision Date: 21 October 2015
• Docket Number: No. 14-CV-2064-LRR,14-CV-2064-LRR
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
• Parties: EDDIE WAYNE GHOLSTON, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

EDDIE WAYNE GHOLSTON, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

No. 14-CV-2064-LRR

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

October 21, 2015

ORDER

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY ................................. 2

III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ................................ 3

IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW ................................. 6

A. Review of ALJ's Decision ............................. 6

B. Review of Report and Recommendation .................... 8

V. ANALYSIS ........................................... 9

A. The Five-Step Disability Analysis ........................ 9

B. Gholston's Obesity ................................ 13

1. Background ................................. 13

2. ALJ's decision ............................... 13

3. Report and recommendation ...................... 14

4. Parties' arguments ............................ 15

5. Application ................................. 16

C. Gholston's Intelligence Level .......................... 20

1. Background ................................. 20

2. ALJ's decision ............................... 21

3. Report and recommendation ...................... 224. Parties' arguments ............................ 22

5. Application ................................. 24

D. Consultative Examinations and Medical Opinion Sources ....... 31

1. Background ................................. 31

2. ALJ's decision ............................... 33

3. Report and recommendation ...................... 34

4. Parties' arguments ............................ 35

5. Application ................................. 37

E. Vocational Evidence ................................ 43

1. Background ................................. 43

2. ALJ's decision ............................... 44

3. Report and recommendation ...................... 45

4. Parties' arguments ............................ 46

5. Application ................................. 47

VI. CONCLUSION ....................................... 53

I. INTRODUCTION

The matter before the court is Plaintiff Eddie Wayne Gholston's Objections (docket no. 16) to United States Magistrate Judge Jon S. Scoles's Report and Recommendation (docket no. 15). The Report and Recommendation recommends that the court affirm the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") denying Gholston's Title II application for disability insurance benefits and Title XVI application for supplemental security income ("SSI") benefits and that the court dismiss Gholston's Complaint (docket no. 3) with prejudice.

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On October 7, 2014, Gholston filed the Complaint, seeking judicial review of the Commissioner's final decision. On December 15, 2014, the Commissioner filed an Answer (docket no. 7). On January 15, 2015, Gholston filed "Plaintiff's Brief" (docket no. 10). On February 13, 2015, the Commissioner filed "Defendant's Brief" (docket no. 11). On February 23, 2015, Gholston filed a Reply (docket no. 12). On February 24,2015, this matter was referred to Chief Magistrate Judge Jon S. Scoles for issuance of a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). On June 12, 2015, Judge Scoles filed the Report and Recommendation. On June 24, 2015, Gholston filed his Objections.

In Plaintiff's Brief, Gholston argues that there is not substantial evidence on the record as a whole to support the Administrative Law Judge's ("ALJ") determination of Gholston's residual functional capacity ("RFC") and the ALJ's determination that he is not disabled. Plaintiff's Brief at 11. He also argues that the ALJ failed to fully and fairly develop the record. Id. at 18. Finally, he contends that the testimony of a vocational witness did not provide substantial evidence for the ALJ's finding that jobs that Gholston can perform exist in significant numbers in the national or regional economy. Id. at 20. In Defendant's Brief, the Commissioner argues that substantial evidence supports the ALJ's RFC finding, that he properly developed the record and that substantial evidence supporting the entirety of his decision exists on the record as a whole. Defendant's Brief at 6-17.

III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND¹

Gholston was born in 1974 and completed the tenth grade before dropping out of school part way through the eleventh grade. Gholston states that, while in school, he was enrolled in "special education" classes for English and mathematics. On January 6, 2012, Gholston applied for both disability insurance benefits and SSI benefits with an alleged disability onset date of June 24, 2008.² His applications were initially denied on April 2,2012 and were denied on reconsideration on May 21, 2012. On April 24, 2013, Gholston appeared via video conference with his attorney before ALJ Robert Milton Erickson for an administrative hearing. Both Gholston and a vocational expert ("VE"), Carma A. Mitchell, testified at the hearing. On June 25, 2013, the ALJ denied Gholston's claims, finding that he is not disabled and not entitled to disability insurance benefits or SSI benefits because he is functionally capable of performing work that exists in significant numbers in the national or regional economy. On August 8, 2014, the Appeals Council denied Gholston's request for review. Consequently, the ALJ's June 25, 2013 decision was adopted as the Commissioner's final decision. See Davidson v. Astrue, 501 F.3d 987, 989 (8th Cir. 2007) (noting that, where the Appeals Council denies review, the ALJ's decision becomes the final decision of the Commissioner).

The record contains an earnings report for Gholston for the period 1991-2012. From 1991 to 2010, Gholston earned less than $1,000 in eight of the 20 years and in two of those eight years (1995 and 2000) he had no earnings.³ In the remaining twelve years, he earned between $1,449.87 and $10,189.19. Administrative Record at 253-54. He has had limited earnings since 2010. Id. at 277. However, the ALJ determined that Gholston has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged disability onset date. Id. at 21.

At the administrative hearing, Gholston testified that he can "barely" read and write, "somewhat" knows how to use a computer and would be unable to make change for a five dollar bill without writing it down. Id. at 66-67. During the hearing, the ALJ provided Mitchell with a hypothetical for an individual matching the ALJ's eventualdetermination of Gholston's RFC. Mitchell testified that such an individual could perform two jobs: (1) document preparer, with 350 positions in Iowa and over 32,700 nationally and (2) addresser, with 200 positions in Iowa and 25,000 nationally. Id. at 75-76. When Gholston's counsel questioned Mitchell as to the extent that the document preparer and addresser positions required the use of both arms, Mitchell opined that a person in those positions could frequently use their dominant hand and would still be able to perform the job, but noted that the Dictionary of Occupational Titles ("DOT") and its supplements did not distinguish the extent that the positions required the use of both arms. Id. at 78-79.

In his decision, the ALJ determined that Gholston had the following severe impairments: "[1] left shoulder tear, [2] status post gunshot wound to the right lower extremity, [3] obesity, [4] left foot/ankle pain due to changes in hardware, [5] affective disorder, [6] anxiety disorder, and [7] polysubstance abuse." Id. at 22. The ALJ then determined that Gholston had the following RFC:

[Gholston can] perform sedentary work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(a) and 416.967(a) and SSR 83-10 except for the following limitations: [he] can lift and/or carry 10 pounds frequently; he can stand and/or walk for two hours out of an eight-hour workday with regular breaks and standing for no more than five minutes continuously and walking for no more than 20 minutes continuously; he can sit for six hours out of an eight-hour workday with regular breaks and sitting for no more than 30 minutes continuously; he can never stoop, crawl, or kneel; he can occasionally perform gross manipulation with the left upper extremity; he must avoid concentrated exposure to dust, fumes, or temperature extremes; and he is limited to performing simple repetitive tasks with no more than occasional interaction with the public and co-workers.

Id. at 23. In arriving at this determination, the ALJ considered the "opinions of the State agency review physicians, the opinions and findings of the consultative examiners, the findings and opinions of [Gholston's] treating physicians, [Gholston's] testimony, his behavior at the hearing, his past medical history, his educational background, and thediagnostic and clinical findings of record." Id. at 27. In doing so, the ALJ attempted to "strike a balance" between the sometimes-conflicting evidence, and stated that the RFC finding was "based upon independent proper weighing of all the medical and non-medical evidence." Id. at 27, 29. Finally, the ALJ determined that Gholston cannot perform his past relevant work, but can perform work that exists in significant numbers in the national or regional economy and is, therefore, not disabled. Id. at 29-31.

IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A. Review of ALJ's Decision

The ALJ's decision not to award disability insurance benefits, when adopted as the Commissioner's final determination following an administrative hearing, is subject to judicial review. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Section 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 Commissioner's final determination not to award SSI benefits is subject to judicial review to the same extent. 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)...