Jackson v. Barnhart

• Decision Date: 02 April 2002
• Docket Number: No. CIV.A. 01-1410 (RMU).,CIV.A. 01-1410 (RMU).
• Citation: 271 F.Supp.2d 30
• Parties: Trinita JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

271 F.Supp.2d 30

Trinita JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant.

No. CIV.A. 01-1410 (RMU).

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

April 2, 2002.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Lynn Edward Cunningham, George Washington University Law School, Community Legal Clinics, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

Fred E. Haynes, U.S. Attorney's Office, Washington, DC, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

REMANDING THE CASE TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

URBINA, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the court for a review of the final decision of the defendant, the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner"), denying Trinita Jackson ("the claimant" or "the plaintiff"), Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") under the Social Security Act ("the Act"), 42 U.S.C. § 1382. Before the court are the plaintiff's motion for judgment of reversal and the defendant's motion for summary affirmance. In the alternative, both parties ask the court to remand this case for further proceedings. Upon consideration of the parties' submissions and the administrative record herein, the court remands this matter for further proceedings consistent with this Memorandum Opinion.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Procedural History

The plaintiff applied for SSI payments on May 24, 1999 and the Commissioner denied her application on initial review and again on reconsideration. See Administrative Record ("AR") at 10. The plaintiff sought and received a hearing on July 25, 2000 before Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") Eugene Bonds. On November 2, 2000, the ALJ concluded that the plaintiff's impairment was not severe enough to meet any of the impairments recognized by the Act as conclusively disabling. See AR at 11. The ALJ further determined that the plaintiff had the residential functional capacity ("RFC") to perform light work that would enable her employment in a significant number of jobs in the national economy. See AR at 17. The Social Security Administration ("SSA") Appeals Council denied the plaintiff's request for review, making the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Commissioner. See AR at 4-5. On June 4, 2001, the plaintiff filed her complaint with this court.

B. Factual History

Trinita Jackson was born on May 4, 1968 and was 32 years old at the time of the administrative hearing. See AR at 29. At the hearing, Ms. Jackson testified that she lives independently with her one child, a five year-old daughter. See id. Before 1993 and the onset of her alleged disability, the plaintiff's past work included work as a temporary retail clerk and a home health aide in a nursing agency. See AR at 63. Since 1993, the plaintiff has supported herself and her child through two programs, Aid to Families with Dependent Children and Food Stamps.¹ See AR at 59.

The plaintiff suffers from diabetes mellitus, first diagnosed in 1996. See AR at 92. At the administrative hearing, the plaintiff alleged that her impairment meets or equals that of diabetes mellitus with neuropathy.² See AR at 28-29. Her testimony and the medical records indicated that her condition results in severe pain in both of her feet, producing calluses, blisters, and lesions on her feet. See Pl.'s Mot. for J. of Rev. at 4. She noted that she is not able to walk on her toes, and consequently walks with a severe limp. See id.; AR at 142.

Ms. Jackson reported that the pain arising from her alleged disability limits her ability to perform many activities. See AR at 31-36, 83. While she can attend to household chores, such as cooking and doing laundry, the pain forces her to take several breaks for rest. See AR at 34. She sits down whenever she can when performing these activities. See id. She further testified that she walks her daughter to school every day, but requires 30 to 45 minutes to walk the approximately two blocks to school. See AR at 32-33. She no longer attends church because she cannot walk to the public transportation needed to get there. See AR at 35.

Several doctors treated and examined the plaintiff in connection with her diabetes mellitus — the basis of her claim for disability benefits. Her treating physicians are Drs. Endeshaw and Hynes of The George Washington University Hospital. See AR at 256. Dr. Endeshaw reported that the plaintiff suffers from diabetic neuropathy and experiences "burning pain in both lower legs." See AR at 179. Dr. Hynes diagnosed Ms. Jackson as having "severe diabetic neuropathy," "marked neuropathy," and "painful neuropathy." See AR at 159-60. These physicians also documented the plaintiff's difficulty walking and the intense pain she experiences. See, e.g., AR at 160, 201, 256.

III. STANDARD FOR REVIEW

In this section, the court explains the proper scope of a district court's review of a Social Security Commissioner's decision regarding a claimant's disability. The court also describes the appropriate legal standard, and the ALJ's determinations pursuant to this legal standard.

A. Scope of Review

If there is "substantial evidence" in the record to support the Commissioner's decision regarding a claimant's disability, then the district court must affirm the decision. See Simms v. Harris, 662 F.2d 774, 777 (D.C.Cir.1980). The substantial evidence standard entails a degree of deference to the Commissioner's decision. See Davis v. Heckler, 566 F.Supp. 1193, 1195 (D.D.C.1983). Substantial evidence is "`such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.'" Brown v. Bowen, 794 F.2d 703, 705 (D.C.Cir.1986) (quoting Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971)). Even if supported by substantial evidence, however, the court will not uphold the Commissioner's findings if the Commissioner reached them by applying an erroneous legal standard. See Marcus v. Califano, 615 F.2d 23, 27 (2d Cir.1979).

To determine whether the Commissioner's decision is free from legal error and supported by substantial evidence, the district court must "`carefully scrutinize the entire record.'" Davis, 566 F.Supp. at 1195 (quoting Klug v. Weinberger, 514 F.2d 423, 425 (8th Cir.1975)). The court may not reweigh the evidence and "replace the [Commissioner]'s judgment regarding the weight and validity of the evidence with its own." Davis, 566 F.Supp. at 1195.

B. Legal Standard

The Social Security Act defines a disability as the "inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment ... which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than twelve months." 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A); see also Barnhart v. Walton, 535 U.S. 212, 122 S.Ct. 1265, 152 L.Ed.2d 330 (2002) (No. 00-1937). The Act and its implementing regulations lay out a specific five-step process for evaluating a claimant's disability. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920.³

First, the claimant must not have engaged in "substantial gainful activity" since the onset of the impairment. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(b), 416.920(b). Second, the claimant must show that she has a severe impairment, that is, one that "significantly limits [the claimant's] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities." 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). Third, if the impairment is severe, the Commissioner must determine whether the impairment meets or equals a listed impairment in Appendix 1, which leads to a conclusive presumption of disability and ends the inquiry. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d); 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, App. 1.

If the impairment is not one that the SSA presumes to be disabling, however, then the evaluation continues to the fourth step. At this stage, the Commissioner determines whether the claimant is incapable of performing work that she has done in the past. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e). If incapable of the past work, then at the fifth step, the Commissioner must determine the claimant's RFC to see if she can perform other work that exists in substantial numbers in the national economy. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f).

Importantly, the Commissioner bears the burden of showing that the claimant is capable of performing other work. See Brown, 794 F.2d at 706. The Commissioner could meet this burden through the testimony of a vocational expert in order to ascertain the specific jobs that would accommodate the individual's specific RFC. If the Commissioner considers the opinion of a vocational expert in determining the claimant's ability to perform other work, the Commissioner must accurately describe the claimant's condition in any question the Commissioner poses to the vocational expert. See Simms v. Sullivan, 877 F.2d 1047, 1050 (D.C.Cir. 1989).

IV. ANALYSIS

In this matter, the Commissioner, through the ALJ, applied the five-step analysis described supra and determined, first, that the plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the onset of her impairment. See AR at 17. The ALJ then found that the plaintiff suffered from a severe impairment. See id. At Step 3, the ALJ found that the plaintiff's impairment, while severe, did not meet any of the listed impairments that are presumptively disabling. See id. Next, the ALJ found that the plaintiff could not perform any of her past relevant work. See id. He also found that the plaintiff had the residual functional capacity to perform "light" work and that, even given the plaintiff's limitations, a significant number of jobs exist in the national economy that the plaintiff can perform. See id.

The plaintiff contends that several errors taint the findings of the ALJ: First, the plaintiff argues that the ALJ did not properly consider the medical evidence supporting the plaintiff's claim of meeting a listed impairment. See Pl.'s Mot. for J. of Rev. at 5. Second, the plaintiff explains that the record does not support the ALJ's finding that the plaintiff's...