Heller v. Berryhill
| Decision Date | 19 September 2017 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-CV-00360 |
| Parties | SUZANNE HELLER, Plaintiff, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
(MEHALCHICK, M.J.)
This is an action brought under Section 1383(c) of the Social Security Act and 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (hereinafter, "the Commissioner") denying Plaintiff Suzanne Heller's claims for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits ("DIB") under Title II of the Social Security Act. (Doc. 1). For the reasons expressed herein, and upon detailed consideration of the arguments raised by the parties in their respective briefs, the Court finds that the Commissioner's decision should be vacated and the matter remanded for further review.
On January 9, 2013, Heller filed a Title II application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits, alleging disability beginning August 8, 2012. (Doc. 13, at 2). Her claim was denied on April 11, 2013, and she requested a hearing by an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"). (Doc. 13, at 2). A hearing was conducted by ALJ Scott M. Staller on August 19, 2014. (Doc. 13, at 2). In a written decision dated August 28, 2014, the ALJ determined Heller was not disabled and therefore not entitled to benefits. (Doc. 13, at 2). Heller appealed this decision to the Appeals Council on October 13, 2014, who denied her appeal on January 15, 2016. (Doc. 13, at 2).
On February 29, 2016, Heller filed the instant complaint. (Doc. 1). The Commissioner responded on June 9, 2016, providing the requisite transcripts. (Doc. 8; Doc. 9). The parties then each filed their respective briefs. (Doc. 13; Doc. 17; Doc. 18). In her brief, Heller argues the ALJ's erred in five respects: that he should have found Heller's impairments met or equaled Listings 12.04 and 12.06; substantial evidence does not support the ALJ's evaluation of opinion evidence; the ALJ's RFC is not supported by substantial evidence; the ALJ improperly evaluated Heller's GAF scores; and that substantial evidence does not support the ALJ's credibility assessment. (Doc. 13, at 1-2). The Commissioner disagreed with each of Heller's arguments. (Doc. 17). The Commissioner and Heller consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned on November 16, 2016. (Doc. 24).
All transcripts received and the positions fully briefed, the matter is ripe for review.
In his decision dated August 28, 2014, the ALJ determined Heller "is not disabled under sections 216(i) and 223(d) of the Social Security Act." (Doc. 9-2, at 53). The ALJ reached this conclusion after proceeding through the five-step sequential analysis required by the Social Security Act. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. The ALJ determined that Heller meets the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act through December 31, 2017. (Doc. 9-2, at 44).
At step one of the five-step analysis, an ALJ must determine whether the claimant is engaging in substantial gainful activity ("SGA"). 20 C.F.R § 404.1520(a)(4)(i). If a claimant is engaging in SGA, the Regulations deem them not disabled, regardless of age, education, or work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b). SGA is defined as work activity—requiringsignificant physical or mental activity—resulting in pay or profit. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1572. In making this determination, the ALJ must consider only the earnings of the claimant. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1574. The ALJ determined Heller "has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since August 8, 2012, the alleged onset date." (Doc. 9-2, at 44). The ALJ acknowledged Heller performed part-time work at home as a bookkeeper for a non-profit organization roughly 5-10 hours per week, however determined that it did not rise to the level of SGA. (Doc. 9-2, at 44). Thus, the ALJ's analysis proceeded to step two.
At step two, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment that is severe or a combination of impairments that are severe. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(ii). If the ALJ determines that a claimant does not have an "impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits [their] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities, [the ALJ] will find that [the claimant] does not have a severe impairment and [is], therefore not disabled." 20 C.F.R. § 1520(c). If a claimant establishes a severe impairment or combination of impairments, the analysis continues to the third step.
The ALJ found Heller had seven severe impairments: status post two transient ischemic attacks; osteoarthritis; adhesive capsulitis of the left shoulder status post rotator cuff repair; hyperparathyroidism status post hemi parathyroidectomy; chronic kidney disease - stage 3; major depressive disorder; and post-traumatic stress disorder ("PTSD"). (Doc. 9-2, at 44). The ALJ also noted non-severe impairments of hypertension and Barrett's esophagus, but determined these impairments had not caused "more than a minimal limitation in the claimant's ability to work since her alleged onset date." (Doc. 9-2, at 44).
At step three, the ALJ must determine whether the severe impairment or combination of impairments meets or equals the medical equivalent of an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part404, Subpt. P, App. 1 (20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d); 404.1525; 404.1526). If the ALJ determines that the claimant's impairments meet these listings, then the claimant is considered disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). The ALJ determined that none of Heller's impairments considered individually or in combination met or equaled a Listing. (Doc. 9-2, at 45-47). Specifically, the ALJ considered Listings 1.02 (major dysfunction of a joint); 1.04 (disorders of the spine); 6.02; 11.04 (vascular insult to the brain);12.04 (depressive, bipolar and related disorders); 12.06 (anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorders); 14.09 (inflammatory arthritis). (Doc. 9-2, at 45-47).
Between steps three and four, the ALJ determines the claimant's residual functional capacity ("RFC"), crafted upon consideration of the medical evidence provided. The ALJ determined that Heller:
Having assessed a claimant's RFC, at step four the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has the RFC to perform the requirements of their past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). A finding that the claimant can still perform past relevant work requires a determination that the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). Past relevant work is defined as work the claimant has done within the past 15 years, that was substantialgainful activity, and that lasted long enough for the claimant to learn how to do it. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1560(b). If the claimant cannot perform past relevant work or has no past relevant work, then the analysis proceeds to the fifth step.
The ALJ determined Heller is unable to perform past relevant work. (Doc. 9-2, at 51). The ALJ noted past relevant work as an appointment clerk, bookkeeper, receptionist, and administrative clerk, but, relying on the testimony of a vocational expert, determined that performance of each exceeded the RFC that Heller possessed. (Doc. 9-2, at 51).
At step five of the sequential analysis process, an ALJ considers the claimant's age, education, and work experience to see if a claimant can make the adjustment to other work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). These factors are not considered when evaluating a claimant's ability to perform past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1560(b)(3). If a claimant has the ability to make an adjustment to other work, they will not be considered disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v).
The ALJ made vocational determinations that Heller was 50 years old on the alleged onset date, defined as an individual closely approaching advanced age. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1563. (Doc. 9-2, at 51). The ALJ also found that Heller "has at least a high school education and is able to communicate in English. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1564. (Doc. 9-2, at 51). The ALJ determined that upon consideration of these factors, Heller's RFC, and the testimony of a vocational expert, "there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that the claimant can perform." (Doc. 9-2, at 52). The ALJ found that Heller could perform such occupations as mail clerk, marker, and office helper. (Doc. 9-2, at 52).
As a result of this analysis, the ALJ determined that Heller was not disabled and denied Heller's applications for benefits. (Doc. 9-2, at 52).
In order to receive benefits under Title II or Title XVI of the Social Security Act, a claimant must demonstrate an "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 which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months." 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A). To satisfy this requirement, a claimant must have a severe physical or mental impairment that makes it impossible to do his or her previous work or any other substantial gainful activity that exists in significant numbers in the national economy. 42...
To continue reading
Request your trial