Henderson v. Colvin

• Decision Date: 02 September 2016
• Docket Number: No. C15-0081-CJW,C15-0081-CJW
• Parties: MARY F. HENDERSON, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

MARY F. HENDERSON, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

No. C15-0081-CJW

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CEDAR RAPIDS DIVISION

September 2, 2016

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

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

II. BACKGROUND ............................................................................. 2

III. DISABILITY DETERMINATIONS AND THE BURDEN OF PROOF ........................................................................................ 3

IV. THE ALJ'S FINDINGS ................................................................... 7

A. Treatment notes by Dr. Vernon .................................................. 9

B. Physical Medical Source Statement by Dr. Vernon ........................ 11

C. Mental Medical Source Statement by Dr. Vernon .......................... 11

V. SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED ON APPEAL ................... 21

A. Exhibit 24E: Representative correspondence dated April 22, 2014 ................................................................................. 21

B. Exhibit 25E: Representative brief dated November 24, 2012 ............ 21

C. Exhibit 26E: Pictures of the claimant's hands and arms faxed on November 25, 2014 ................................................... 22

VI. THE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE STANDARD ................................... 22

VII. DISCUSSION .............................................................................. 23

A. Plaintiff's brief (Doc. 13) ....................................................... 24

1. Claimant's hands ............................................................. 24

2. Claimant's mental limitations .............................................. 29

B. Representative Brief Dated November 24, 2012 (Exhibit 25) Submitted As Supplemental Evidence on Appeal ........................... 37

VIII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................. 40

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, Mary Henderson (claimant), seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (Commissioner) denying claimant's application for disability insurance benefits (DIB) and supplemental security income (SSI) under Title II and XVI of the Social Security Act (Act), 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 423, 1383(c)(3). Plaintiff contends the administrative record (AR) does not contain substantial evidence to support the Commissioner's decision. For the reasons that follow, the court affirms the Commissioner's decision.

II. BACKGROUND

Claimant was born in 1959, has completed high school and one year of college, and has past work as nurse's aide, cook, custodian, and medication technician. AR 27 & 82. Claimant filed applications for DIB and SSI on June 1, 2012, alleging a disability onset date of May 31, 2012. AR 13. She contends she is disabled due to the following impairments: diabetes mellitus; osteoarthritis; depressive disorder; peripheralneuropathy; right shoulder strain with tendinitis; and quadruple bypass. AR 16 & 91. Her claims were denied on September 17, 2012, and again on reconsideration on November 5, 2012. AR 13.

Claimant then requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) on November 21, 2012. AR 13. ALJ Jo Ann L. Draper conducted a hearing on December 19, 2013, at which claimant, claimant's attorney, Danny L. Cornell, and vocational expert, Julie A. Svec, testified. AR 13 & 36-88. On February 24, 2014, the ALJ issued a decision denying claimant's claims. AR 10-29. On April 22, 2014, claimant sought review from the Appeals Council, which denied her request on June 26, 2015. AR 1-4 & 7. The ALJ's decision, thus, became the final decision of the Commissioner. AR 1; 20 C.F.R. § 404.981.

Claimant filed a complaint (Doc. 3) in this court on August 26, 2015, seeking review of the ALJ's decision. With the consent of the parties, the Honorable Linda R. Reade transferred this case to a United States magistrate judge for final disposition and entry of judgment (Doc. 7—signed by the court on November 13, 2015, and filed on the docket on November 16, 2015). The parties have briefed the issues and the matter is now fully submitted.

III. DISABILITY DETERMINATIONS AND THE BURDEN OF PROOF

A disability is defined as "the 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); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1505, 416.905. An individual has a disability when, due to his physical or mental impairments, he "is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind ofsubstantial gainful work which exists . . . in significant numbers either in the region where such individual lives or in several regions of the country." 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(2)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(B). If the claimant is able to do work which exists in the national economy but is unemployed because of inability to get work, lack of opportunities in the local area, economic conditions, employer hiring practices, or other factors, the ALJ will still find the claimant not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1566(c)(1)-(8), 416.966(c)(1)-(8).

To determine whether a claimant has a disability within the meaning of the Act, the Commissioner follows the five-step sequential evaluation process outlined in the regulations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920; see Kirby v. Astrue, 500 F.3d 705, 707-08 (8th Cir. 2007). First, the Commissioner will consider a claimant's work activity. If the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity, then the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i), 416.920(a)(4)(i). "Substantial" work activity involves physical or mental activities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1572(a), 416.972(a). "Gainful" activity is work done for pay or profit, even if the claimant does not ultimately receive pay or profit. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1572(b), 416.972(b).

Second, if the claimant is not engaged in substantial gainful activity, then the Commissioner looks to the severity of the claimant's physical and mental impairments. If the impairments are not severe, then the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii). An impairment is not severe if "it does not significantly limit your physical or mental ability to do basic work activities." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521(a); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c), 416.921(a); Kirby, 500 F.3d at 707.

The ability to do basic work activities is defined as having "the abilities and aptitudes necessary to do most jobs." 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1521(b), 416.921(b). These abilities and aptitudes include: "(1) physical functions such as walking, standing, sitting,lifting, pushing, pulling, reaching, carrying, or handling; (2) capacities for seeing, hearing, and speaking; (3) understanding, carrying out, and remembering simple instructions; (4) use of judgment; (5) responding appropriately to supervision, co-workers, and usual work situations; and (6) dealing with changes in a routine work setting." 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1521(b)(1)-(6), 416.921(b)(1)-(6); see Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 141 (1987).

Third, if the claimant has a severe impairment, then the Commissioner will determine the medical severity of the impairment. If the impairment meets or equals one of the presumptively disabling impairments listed in the regulations, then the claimant is considered disabled regardless of age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 404.1520(d), 416.920(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(d); see Kelley v. Callahan, 133 F.3d 583, 588 (8th Cir. 1998).

Fourth, if the claimant's impairment is severe, but it does not meet or equal one of the presumptively disabling impairments, then the Commissioner will assess the claimant's residual functional capacity (RFC) and the demands of her past relevant work. If the claimant can still do her past relevant work, then she is considered not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), 404.1545(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4)(iv), 416.945(a)(4). Past relevant work is any work the claimant has done within the past 15 years of her application that was substantial gainful activity and lasted long enough for the claimant to learn how to do it. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1560(b)(1), 416.960(b)(1). "RFC is a medical question defined wholly in terms of the claimant's physical ability to perform exertional tasks or, in other words, what the claimant can still do despite his or her physical or mental limitations." Lewis v. Barnhart, 353 F.3d 642, 646 (8th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation omitted); see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1). The RFC is based on all relevant medical and other evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 416.945(a)(3). The claimant is responsible for providing the evidence the Commissioner will use todetermine the RFC. Id. If a claimant retains enough RFC to perform past relevant work, then the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), 416.920(a)(4)(iv).

Fifth, if the claimant's RFC as determined in Step Four will not allow the claimant to perform past relevant work, then the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show there is other work the claimant can do, given the claimant's RFC, age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1512(f), 416.912(f), 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v). The Commissioner must show not only that the claimant's RFC will allow him or her to make the adjustment to other work, but also that other work exists in significant numbers in the national economy. Eichelberger v. Barnhart, 390 F.3d 584, 591 (8th Cir. 2004); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v). If the claimant can make the adjustment, then the Commissioner will find the claimant not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(...