Hutchinson v. Saul
| Decision Date | 16 February 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 20-334-BAJ-SDJ |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana |
| Parties | DAKOTA HUTCHINSON, on behalf of ARRIE HUTCHINSON v. ANDREW M. SAUL COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY |
NOTICE
Please take note that the attached Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation has been filed with the Clerk of the U.S District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), you have 14 days from receipt of this Notice to file written objections to the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Magistrate Judge's Report. A failure to object will constitute a waiver of your right to attack the factual findings on appeal.
ABSOLUTELY NO EXTENSION OF TIME SHALL BE GRANTED TO FILE WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT.
Dakota Hutchinson (Plaintiff) on behalf of his deceased father Arrie Hutchinson (Hutchinson), seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), denying Hutchinson's application for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income under the Social Security Act. (R. Doc. 1). Having found all the procedural prerequisites met, the Court has properly reviewed Plaintiff's appeal. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); 20 C.F.R. § 404.981 (). For the reasons given below, the Court RECOMMENDS that the decision of the Commissioner be AFFIRMED, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (R. Doc. 13) be DENIED, and Plaintiff's appeal be DISMISSED with prejudice.
Arrie Hutchinson filed his application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income on May 18, 2017, alleging that he became disabled on January 1, 2016. (Tr. 192, 194). Hutchinson's alleged disabling conditions include back problems, sciatic nerve damage, disc problems, sodium levels off, high blood pressure, acid reflux, sleep problems, and nerve problems (Tr. 218). Hutchinson's application for benefits was initially denied by the Social Security Administration on August 24, 2017. (Tr. 92). Thereafter, Hutchinson filed a written request for a hearing on October 9, 2017. (Tr. 101). A Notice of Hearing was issued for September 24, 2018 (Tr. 129). Due to the death of Arrie Hutchinson, a Request for Postponement and Notice Regarding Substitution of Party Upon Death of Claimant was filed and the hearing was reset. (Tr. 155, 154) An Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) held an in-person hearing on January 14, 2019, after which she issued an unfavorable decision on May 10, 2019. (Tr. 7).
The ALJ found that Hutchinson was not disabled and therefore not entitled to disability benefits. The ALJ concluded Hutchinson suffered from the following severe impairments: degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, hypertension, generalized anxiety disorder, and depression. (Tr. 12). However, the ALJ concluded that Hutchinson did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met the severity of one of the listed impairments in the social security regulations. (Tr. 13-14). The ALJ also found that Hutchinson had the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform light work as defined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(b), but Hutchinson could lift and carry 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently, and could sit, stand, and/or walk for six hours in an eight-hour workday. (Tr. 14). The ALJ concluded that Hutchinson was unable to perform past relevant work as a stock clerk and maintenance worker, but that there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that Hutchinson could have performed. (Tr. 20-21). Based on this finding, the ALJ concluded that Hutchinson was not disabled. (Tr. 21).
Plaintiff's request for review of the ALJ's decision (Tr. 186) was denied by the Appeals Council on April 2, 2020. (Tr. 1-6). The ALJ's decision rested as the Commissioner's final decision when the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's second request for review. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.981.
The Court's review of the Commissioner's decision is limited under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to two inquiries: (1) whether there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the Commissioner and (2) whether the correct legal standards were applied. Anthony v. Sullivan, 954 F.2d 289, 292 (5th Cir. 1992); Villa v. Sullivan, 895 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1990). Substantial evidence has been defined as less than a preponderance but “more than a mere scintilla.” Bowling v. Shalala, 36 F.3d 431, 434 (5th Cir. 1994). It means “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Villa v. Sullivan, 895 F.2d at 1022. The Fifth Circuit has further held that substantial evidence “must do more than create a suspicion of the existence of the fact to be established, but no substantial evidence will be found only where there is a conspicuous absence of credible choices or no contrary medical evidence.” Hames v. Heckler, 707 F.2d 162, 164 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotations omitted). The Court may not reweigh the evidence or try the issues de novo, nor may it substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner. Cook v. Heckler, 750 F.2d 391, 392 (5th Cir. 1985). Conflicts in the evidence are for the Commissioner “and not the courts to resolve.” Selders v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 614, 617 (5th Cir. 1990).
If the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence, then it is conclusive and must be upheld. Estate of Morris v. Shalala, 207 F.3d 744, 745 (5th Cir. 2000) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g)). If, on the other hand, the Commissioner fails to apply the correct legal standards, or fails to provide a reviewing court with a sufficient basis to determine that the correct legal principles were followed, it is grounds for reversal. See Bradley v. Bowen, 809 F.2d 1054, 1057 (5th Cir. 1987).
To qualify for benefits, the claimant must establish that he is disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act (“SSA”). Herron v. Bowen, 788 F.2d 1127, 1131 (5th Cir.1986) (internal citations omitted). The SSA defines disability 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 twelve months.” Selders v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d at 618.
The Commissioner (through an ALJ) applies a five-step sequential analysis to determine whether a claimant is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). First, the claimant must prove he or she is not currently engaged in substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b). Second, the claimant must prove his or her impairment is “severe” in that it “significantly limits your physical or mental ability to do basic work activities…” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). At step three, the ALJ must conclude the claimant is disabled if he or she proves that his or her impairments meet or are medically equivalent to one of the impairments contained in the Listing of Impairments. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d) (); 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app'x 1 (Listing of Impairments). Fourth, the claimant bears the burden of proving he or she is incapable of meeting the physical and mental demands of his or her past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f).
If the claimant is successful at all four of the preceding steps, then the burden shifts to the Commissioner to prove, considering the claimant's RFC, age, education, and past work experience, that he or she is capable of performing other work. 20 C.F.R § 404.1520(g)(1). If the Commissioner proves other work exists which the claimant can perform, the claimant is given the chance to prove that he or she cannot, in fact, perform that work. Muse, 925 F.2d at 789.
Here, the ALJ made the following determinations:
To continue reading
Request your trial