Hayes v. Colvin
| Decision Date | 08 October 2014 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-129 SECTION "J" (2) |
| Parties | GERALD ANTHONY HAYES v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
Plaintiff, Gerald Anthony Hayes, seeks judicial review pursuant to Section 405(g) of the Social Security Act (the "Act") of the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("Commissioner"), denying plaintiff's claim for disability insurance benefits ("DIB") and supplemental security income benefits ("SSI") under Titles II and XVI of the Act. 42 U.S.C. §§ 423, 1382c. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.2(B).
Hayes filed his applications for DIB and SSI on September 1, 2011, alleging disability beginning December 15, 2010, due to pins in his right leg, asthma, high blood pressure, diabetes, arthritis in his hands and legs, and surgery on his left leg. (Tr. 113-26, 170). After his claims were denied at the agency level, he requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), which was held on September 5, 2012. The ALJ issued a decision denying the application for benefits on October 26, 2012. (Tr. 14-22). After the Appeals Council denied plaintiff's request for review on November 15, 2013,the ALJ's decision became the Commissioner's final decision for purposes of this court's review. (Tr. 1-3).
Plaintiff filed a timely memorandum of facts and law. Record Doc. No. 12. Defendant filed a timely reply memorandum. Record Doc. No. 13.
Plaintiff contends that the ALJ made the following errors:
(Tr. 15-20).
The function of this court on judicial review is limited to determining whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the final decision of the Commissioner as trier of fact and whether the Commissioner applied the appropriate legal standards in evaluating the evidence. Richard ex rel. Z.N.F. v. Astrue, 480 F. App'x 773, 776 (5th Cir. 2012) (citing Perez v. Barnhart, 415 F.3d 457, 461 (5th Cir.2005)); Stringer v. Astrue, 465 F. App'x 361, 363 (5th Cir. 2012) (citing Waters v. Barnhart, 276 F.3d 716, 716 (5th Cir. 2002)). Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971); Richard ex rel. Z.N.F., 480 F. App'x at 776; Stringer, 465 F. App'x at 363-64; Perez, 415 F.3d at 461. This court may not reweigh the evidence in the record, try the issues de novo or substitute its judgment for the Commissioner's, even if the evidence weighs against the Commissioner's decision. Halterman ex rel. Halterman v. Colvin, No. 12-31099, 2013 WL 5913945, at *2 (5th Cir. May 9, 2013) (citing Newton v. Apfel, 209 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir. 2000)); Stringer, 465 F. App'x at 364. The Commissioner, rather than the courts, must resolve conflicts in the evidence. Luckey v. Astrue, 458 F. App'x 322, 324 (5th Cir. 2011) (citing Selders v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 614, 617 (5th Cir. 1990)); Newton, 209 F.3d at 452.
The ALJ is entitled to make any finding that is supported by substantial evidence, regardless of whether other conclusions are also permissible. See Arkansas v. Oklahoma, 503 U.S. 91 (1992). Despite this court's limited function, it must scrutinize the record in its entirety to determine the reasonableness of the decision reached and whether substantial evidence supports it. Joubert v. Astrue, 287 F. App'x 380, 382 (5th Cir. 2008) (citing Perez, 415 F.3d at 461). Any findings of fact by the Commissioner that aresupported by substantial evidence are conclusive. Ray v. Barnhart, 163 F. App'x 308, 311 (5th Cir. 2006) (citing Perales, 402 U.S. at 390); Perez, 415 F.3d at 461.
To be considered disabled and eligible for SSI or DIB,1 plaintiff must show that he is unable "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 twelve months." 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A). The Commissioner has promulgated regulations that provide procedures for evaluating a claim and determining disability. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1501 to 404.1599 & appendices, §§ 416.901 to 416.998 (2012). The regulations include a five-step evaluation process for determining whether an impairment prevents a person from engaging in any substantial gainful activity.2 Id. §§ 404.1520, 416.920;Alexander v. Astrue, 412 F. App'x 719, 720 (5th Cir. 2011) (citing Audler v. Astrue, 501 F.3d 446, 447 (5th Cir. 2007)); Perez, 415 F.3d at 461. The five-step inquiry terminates if the Commissioner finds at any step that the claimant is or is not disabled. Id.
The claimant has the burden of proof under the first four parts of the inquiry. If he successfully carries this burden, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show that other substantial gainful employment is available in the national economy that the claimant is capable of performing. When the Commissioner shows that the claimant is capable of engaging in alternative employment, the burden of proof shifts back to the claimant to rebut this finding. Alexander, 412 F. App'x 720-21; Perez, 415 F.3d at 461.
The court weighs four elements of proof when determining whether there is substantial evidence of disability: "'(1) objective medical facts; (2) diagnoses and opinions of treating and examining physicians; (3) the claimant's subjective evidence of pain and disability; and (4) the claimant's age, education, and work history.'" Chrisner v. Astrue, 249 F. App'x 354, 356 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting Wren v. Sullivan, 925 F.2d 123, 126 (5th Cir. 1991)); accord Perez, 415 F.3d at 463.
Hayes testified that he was 53 years old, had completed the seventh grade and can read, write and do simple arithmetic. (Tr. 29). He said he used to have a driver's license, but he stopped driving and let his license expire because he gets dizzy when he takes his medicine and his hands lock up. He stated that he worked as a brick mason and also poured and finished concrete along with that job. (Tr. 30). He testified that he stopped working in December 2010.
Plaintiff said he has high blood pressure, diabetes, asthma, arthritis and gout. He stated that his doctors told him to avoid the sun. He testified that he has arthritis in his hands, ankles and feet, and gout in both of his feet and hands.
Hayes stated that he was in motor vehicle accidents in August 2011 and January 2012. (Tr. 31). He said that he had surgery on his left ankle after the first accident and that both his ankles swell. He testified that he never had recommended surgery on his left ankle to remove the screws because he was told that Medicaid would not pay for it. (Tr. 32).
Plaintiff stated that the second accident occurred when he was a passenger in a vehicle. He said that a truck ran a red light, hit his vehicle and flipped it over. He said he woke up in the hospital. He stated that his right knee, neck and back were injured and he has a ruptured disk in his back.
Hayes said he has been treated at Tulane Medical Center and Tulane Covenant House. He stated that his medications make him drowsy. He testified that he uses a cane because his back or knees sometimes give out when he is walking.
Plaintiff said he typically stays close to the house, does not go too far, takes his medicine and sleeps because his feet...
To continue reading
Request your trial