Henning v. Colvin
| Decision Date | 22 August 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. C12–3042–MWB.,C12–3042–MWB. |
| Citation | 943 F.Supp.2d 969 |
| Parties | Evelyn Faye HENNING, Plaintiff, v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Ruth M. Carter, Carter Law Firm PC, Columbia, MO, for Plaintiff.
Matthew J. Cole, Stephanie Johnson Wright, U.S. Attorney's Office, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Defendant.
This case is before me on a Report And Recommendation (R & R) (docket no. 15) from Magistrate Judge Leonard Strand recommending that I reverse and remand the Social Security Commissioner's (the Commissioner's) decision to deny Plaintiff Evelyn Henning (Henning) disability insurance benefits (DIB) under Title II of the Social Security Act. On May 23, 2013, Defendant filed objections to the R & R, requesting that I affirm the Commissioner's decision (docket no. 16). Henning did not file a response to Defendant's objections. For the reasons discussed below, I accept Judge Strand's R & R, and I remand this case for further proceedings.
In this case, Henning seeks disability benefits based on two claimed impairments: depression and prurigo nodularis, a skin condition. In his R & R, Judge Strand summarized this case's procedural background:
Henning was born in 1952 and was 56 years old on her alleged onset date of October 6, 2008. AR 13, 20. She obtained a GED in 1971 and has past relevant work as a framer and a medication technician. AR 20, 262. She protectively filed her application for DIB on May 4, 2009. AR 130–36, 198. After that claim was denied, apparently without notice, Henning filed another application on July 31, 2009. AR 137–43. That application was denied initially on September 15, 2009, and denied again on reconsideration. AR 49, 51, 58–61, 68–71. Henning requested a hearing, which was conducted [on] January 11, 2011, by Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Thomas M. Donahue. AR 13. During the hearing, Henning and a vocational expert (“VE”) testified. AR 30–43. The ALJ issued a decision denying Henning's application on January 27, 2011. AR 13–22. On May 4, 2012, the Appeals Council denied Henning's request for review. AR 1–3. As such, the ALJ's decision is the final decision of the Commissioner. AR 1; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.981.
Report And Recommendation 1–2 (docket no. 15). On July 10, 2012, Henning filed an action in this court seeking judicial review of the ALJ's decision (docket no. 3). I referred this case to Judge Strand on December 11, 2012.
On May 9, 2013, Judge Strand issued his R & R, recommending that I reverse and remand the ALJ's decision denying Henning benefits (docket no. 15). On May 23, 2013, Defendant objected to Judge Strand's recommendation, arguing that I should affirm the ALJ's decision (docket no. 16). I must now decide whether to accept or reject Judge Strand's R & R in light of Defendant's objections.
In his R & R, Judge Strand made thorough findings of fact. Report And Recommendation 2–8 (docket no. 15). While Defendant objects to Judge Strand's analysis and legal conclusion, Defendant does not object to Judge Strand's factual findings. I therefore adopt the findings of fact from the R & R, which are set forth below.
This case involves two distinct impairments: (1) depression, which the ALJ found to be a severe impairment, and (2) prurigo nodularis, a skin condition that the ALJ deemed to be non-severe. As explained further below, I find that this case must be remanded for further consideration with regard to prurigo nodularis. Thus, while I have reviewed the entire administrative record, I will summarize the evidence only as it relates to that impairment.
In March 2008, Henning began developing sores around her eye with erythema and edema. AR 350. By March 13, 2008, this had progressed to a rash with redness and itching. AR 349. On April 7, 2008, Henning was examined for facial edema, pruritus, and popular rash on her neck. AR 347. She stated that the condition started during the night and was growing worse. Id.
By May 2008, Henning's rash was on her back, legs, and chest. AR 346. She reported that she had used prednisone as prescribed but then tapered off using it because it caused itching. Id. When she stopped using prednisone, the rash returned. Id. She was found to have swelling around her right eye, numerous plaques with erythema, scales and crusts on her chest and chin and on her back with excoriations. Id. Lynne Senty, D.O., prescribed medication and noted that Henning did not have health insurance. Id.
In June 2008, Henning saw dermatologist Tanusin Ploysangam, M.D., who noted that she had scattered erosions and excoriations, except in areas where she could not reach. AR 426. Dr. Ploysangam prescribed various medications over a series of visits. AR 424–26.
In July 2008, Henning saw C. Joseph Plank, M.D., who took biopsies and admonished plaintiff to stop scratching. AR 421–23, 428–29. She saw Dr. Plank again in September 2008. At that time, he concluded that she was suffering from prurigo nodularis and that it was persisting despite using various medications. AR 419. He stated that “[n]one of these measures have made any difference.” Id. He also stated that because Henning did not have health insurance, she would not be scheduled for another appointment unless it became necessary. Id. Instead, she was to call with a report in one month. Id.
A mental health record from January 2009 states that Henning had been “diagnosed with a rare skin condition about a year ago.” AR 355. The provider noted: Id.
On May 28, 2009, and June 25, 2009, Henning's therapist listed her Axis III 1 diagnosis as prurigo nodularis. AR 359–360. In August and October 2009, the therapist noted that Henning's skin condition was interfering with her getting a job and that Henning was trying to cover the sores with makeup but was still too...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Engledow v. Saul
...the VE's Testimony and the Characteristics of the Jobs Identified in the DOT and SCO VE testimony that conflicts with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles ("DOT") and its companion publication the Selected Characteristics of Occupations ("SCO") (collectively for this discussion, "the DOT")......
-
Wells v. Colvin
...v. Apfel, 222 F.3d 496, 501 (8th Cir. 2000) (ALJ obligated to consider combined effects of impairments); Henning v. Colvin, 943 F. Supp. 2d 969, 993-94 (N.D. Iowa 2013) (ALJ must consider symptom-related limitations and restrictions of medically determinable impairments). This is especially......
-
Pryor v. Colvin
...affect RFC findings); Cunningham, 222 F.3d at 501 (ALJ obligated to consider combined effects of impairments); Henning v. Colvin, 943 F. Supp. 2d 969, 993-94 (N.D. Iowa 2013) (ALJ must consider symptom-related limitations and restrictions of medically determinable impairments). Where an ALJ......
-
Clifton v. Saul
...and aptitudes necessary to do most jobs.'These abilities and aptitudes include . . . capacities for seeing." Henning v. Colvin, 943 F. Supp. 2d 969, 990 (N.D. Iowa 2013) (internal citation omitted); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521(b). An RFC assessment determines the most work an individual is capable......