Hippensteel v. Social Security Admin.

• Decision Date: 27 September 2001
• Docket Number: No. CIV.A.3:CV-00-1652.,CIV.A.3:CV-00-1652.
• Citation: 302 F.Supp.2d 382
• Parties: Dianna HIPPENSTEEL, Plaintiff, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Larry G. Massanari, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania

302 F.Supp.2d 382

Dianna HIPPENSTEEL, Plaintiff, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Larry G. Massanari, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

No. CIV.A.3:CV-00-1652.

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania.

September 27, 2001.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Patricia A. Shoap, Shoap Law Offices, Chambersburg, PA, for plaintiff.

Justin Blewitt, U.S. Attorney's Office, Scranton, PA, for defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CONABOY, District Judge.

Presently before the Court is Magistrate Judge J. Andrew Smyser's Report and Recommendation, (Doc. 17), regarding Plaintiff Dianna M. Hippensteel's appeal of the denial of Social Security Disability benefits, (Doc. 1). The Magistrate Judge recommends denial of Plaintiff's instant appeal. Because Plaintiff has filed objections to the recommended disposition, (Doc. 18), we shall review the matter de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Kost v. Kozakiewicz, 1 F.3d 176, 180 (3d Cir.1993). After a thorough examination of the record and carefully reviewing the matter de novo, we find that the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") did not base her decision on substantial evidence. Rather, she based her denial on an incomplete record and did not properly consider evidence in the record. Therefore, we remand the case to the Commissioner with a request for an expedited hearing.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed an application for disability insurance benefits ("DIB") under Title II of the Social Security Act ("Act") pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 401 et seq. Plaintiff first applied for DIB on June 10, 1996, claiming disability resulting from a 1993 automobile accident. The claim was initially denied on September 17, 1996 and again on reconsideration on February 27, 1997. The Plaintiff filed a request for a hearing, and ALJ Reana Sloninger held an initial hearing on April 21, 1998 with supplemental hearings on August 18, 1998 and on March 2, 1999. After considering the impairments of severe bilateral shoulder pain and lumbar disc disease with a herniated nucleus pulposus, the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision on April 7, 1999.

The ALJ made the following findings:

1) The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since September 10, 1993.

2) The medical evidence established that the claimant has severe impairments of both shoulders and lumbar disc disease and herniated nucleus pulposus, but that she does not have an impairment or combination of impairments listed in or medically equal to one listed in Appendix 1, Subpart P, Regulation No. 4.

3) The claimant is not entirely credible in regard to her symptoms and the resulting limitations.

4) The claimant is capable of performing less than a full range of light work activity. For the period from September 10, 1993 to May, 1997 the claimant could lift ten pounds frequently and twenty pounds occasionally. She could stand, walk and sit six hours of an eight-hour day, with a need to alternate positions every two hours as occurs during normal breaks. For the period from May, 1997 to the present, the claimant is capable of lifting ten pounds frequently and twenty pounds occasionally. She can stand and walk two hours of an eight-hour day and sit six hours of an eight-hour day, with a need to alternate positions every two hours as occurs during normal breaks. She has the same non-exertional limitations for both time periods. She is unable to operate arm or hand controls with the right upper extremity and is only occasionally able to reach above her shoulder with the right upper extremity. She can do no repetitive work with the right upper extremity, must avoid extreme cold, can occasionally work with vibrating objects with the right upper extremity, can occasionally work with moving, mechanical parts with the right upper extremity and must avoid working in high exposed places. (20 CFR 416.945).

5. The claimant has no past relevant work.

6. The claimant was forty years old at her alleged date of onset and forty-five years old (when ALJ Report written), which is defined as younger. (20 CFR § 416.963).

7. The claimant has a high school education. (20 CFR § 416.964). She can communicate in the English language.

8. The claimant has no transferable work skills.

9. Based on exertional capacity for light work, and the claimant's age, education and work experience, section 416.969 of Regulation No. 16 and Rule 202,21, Table No. 2, Appendix 2, Subpart P, Regulation No. 4 would direct a conclusion of "not disabled."

10. Although the claimant's additional nonexertional limitations do not allow her to perform the full range of light work, using the above-cited rule as a framework for decisionmaking, there are a significant number of jobs in the national economy which she could perform.

11. The claimant was not under a "disability," as defined in the Social Security Act, at any time through the date of the ALJ's decision. (20 CFR § 416.920(f)).

(R. at 23-25). Based on these findings, the ALJ held that Plaintiff was not eligible for supplemental security income under sections 1602 and 1614(a)(3)(A) of the Social Security Act. (R. at 25).

Following the decision, Plaintiff filed an appeal. On March 31, 2000, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review, making the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Commissioner.

Plaintiff filed her Complaint with this Court on September 18, 2000. (Doc. 1). On January 19, 2001, Defendant filed an answer and a copy of the administrative record. (Doc. 8). A supplemental transcript was filed on May 23, 2001. (Doc. 14). Pursuant to Local Rules 83.40.4 and 83.40.5, Plaintiff filed her brief on April 9, 2001, (Doc. 11), and Defendant filed his brief on June 4, 2001, (Doc. 15). Plaintiff filed a reply brief on June 12, 2001. (Doc. 16).

Magistrate Judge Smyser issued his Report and Recommendation on June 25, 2001. (Doc. 17). Magistrate Judge Smyser concluded that the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence. He recommended that the Court deny Plaintiff's appeal and affirm the decision of the Commissioner. (Doc. 17 at 20). Plaintiff filed Objections to the Report and Recommendation, (Doc. 18), and a supportive brief, (Doc. 19), on July 6, 2001.

DISCUSSION

This Court's review of the Commissioner's final decision is limited to determining whether there is substantial evidence to support the Commissioner's decision. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Hartranft v. Apfel, 181 F.3d 358, 360 (3d Cir.1999). The Court is "bound by the ALJ's findings of fact if they are supported by substantial evidence in the record." Plummer v. Apfel, 186 F.3d 422, 427 (3d Cir.1999). Substantial evidence means "more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971); Plummer, 186 F.3d at 427 (quoting Ventura v. Shalala, 55 F.3d 900, 901 (3d Cir.1995)). Therefore, we will not set aside the Commissioner's final decision if it is supported by substantial evidence, even if we would have reached different factual conclusions. Hartranft, 181 F.3d at 360 (citing Monsour Medical Center v. Heckler, 806 F.2d 1185, 1190-91 (3d Cir.1986)); 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) ("[t]he findings of the Commissioner of Social Security as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive ...").

The Commissioner is required to use a five-step analysis to determine whether a claimant is disabled.¹ It is necessary for the Commissioner to ascertain: 1) whether the applicant is engaged in a substantial activity; 2) whether the applicant is severely impaired; 3) whether the impairments matches or is equal to the requirements of one of the listed impairments, whereby he qualifies for benefits without further inquiry; 4) whether the claimant can perform his past work; 5) whether the claimant's impairment together with his age, education, and past work experience also precludes him from doing any other sort of work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)-(f); See Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 110 S.Ct. 885, 888-89, 107 L.Ed.2d 967 (1990). If at any point during the sequential five-step analysis it is determined that the claimant is not disabled then the claim will not be reviewed any further. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a).

In this case, the Magistrate Judge found Plaintiff not disabled at Step 5. (R. at 22-23). He found that there are a significant number of jobs in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform. (Id.).

In her objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff claims that the ALJ's and Magistrate Judge's determination that she was not disabled and could perform competitive work which exists in significant numbers in the national economy was in error. (Doc 19). Plaintiff asserts three bases for objection: 1) the omission of a significant part of the hearing transcript warrants a remand; 2) the ALJ's failure to consider Plaintiff's mental impairment warrants a remand; and 3) the ALJ erred in failing to apply the "treating physician rule" when she ascribed greater weight to the opinions of a non-treating non-examining source than to those of Plaintiff's treating physician. (Doc. 11 at 9; Doc. 18; Doc. 19 at 8).

At the outset of our review of whether the ALJ has met the substantial evidence standard in this case, we note that the Third Circuit has repeatedly emphasized the special nature of proceedings for disability benefits. See Dobrowolsky v. Califano, 606 F.2d 403, 406 (3d Cir.1979). These proceedings are not strictly adversarial, but rather the Social Security Administration provides an applicant with assistance to prove his claim. Id."These proceedings are extremely important to the claimants, who are in real need in most instances and who claim not charity but that which is rightfully due as provided for in Chapter 7, Subchapter II, of the Social Security Act." Hess v. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, 497 F.2d 837, 840 (3d Cir.1974)...