Jasmatie R. v. Saul
| Decision Date | 09 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 1:19-cv-03541-AJB |
| Parties | JASMATIE R., Plaintiff, v. ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia |
Plaintiff Jasmatie R. brought this action pursuant to § 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), to obtain judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("the Commissioner") denying her application for social security disability insurance benefits ("DIB")under the Social Security Act.3 For the reasons set forth below, the Court REVERSES the final decision of the Commissioner AND REMANDS the case to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Plaintiff filed an application for DIB on June 22, 2015, alleging disability commencing on June 20, 2014. [Record (hereinafter "R") 292]. Plaintiff's application was denied initially and on reconsideration. [R91, 104]. Plaintiff then requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"). [R162-63]. An evidentiary hearing was held on January 31, 2018. [R59-90]. The ALJ issued a decision on February 21, 2018, denying Plaintiff's application on the ground thatshe had not been under a "disability" at any time from the alleged onset date through the date of the decision. [R123-43]. Plaintiff sought review by the Appeals Council, and on May 4, 2018, the Appeals Council remanded the case because the ALJ had based his credibility finding on a rescinded Social Security Ruling ("SSR").4 [R144-47].
A second evidentiary hearing was held on December 13, 2018, wherein Plaintiff amended her alleged onset date to January 1, 2016. [R36-58]. The ALJ issued a second decision on January 3, 2019, again denying Plaintiff's application on the ground that she had not been under a "disability" at any time through the date of the decision. [R15-35]. Plaintiff again sought review by the AppealsCouncil, and on June 10, 2019, the Appeals Council issued an unfavorable decision, making the Appeals Council's decision the final decision of the Commissioner. [R1-9].
Plaintiff then initiated this lawsuit on August 6, 2019, seeking review of the Commissioner's decision. [Doc. 1]. The answer and transcript were filed on November 26, 2019. [Docs. 7, 8]. On January 9, 2020, Plaintiff filed a brief in support of her petition for review of the Commissioner's decision, [Doc. 11]; on February 10, 2020, the Commissioner filed a response in support of the decision, [Doc. 12]; and on February 24, 2020, Plaintiff filed a reply brief in support of her petition for review of the Commissioner's decision, [Doc. 13]. The matter is now before the Court upon the administrative record, the parties' pleadings, and the parties' briefs,5 and it is accordingly ripe for review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
An individual is considered disabled for purposes of disability benefits if he is unable 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 notless than 12 months." 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). The impairment or impairments must result from anatomical, psychological, or physiological abnormalities which are demonstrable by medically accepted clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques and must be of such severity that the claimant is not only unable to do previous work but cannot, considering age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work that exists in the national economy. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)-(3).
The burden of proof in a Social Security disability case is divided between the claimant and the Commissioner. The claimant bears the primary burden of establishing the existence of a "disability" and therefore entitlement to disability benefits. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1512(a). The Commissioner uses a five-step sequential process to determine whether the claimant has met the burden of proving disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a); Doughty v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 1274, 1278 (11th Cir. 2001); Jones v. Apfel, 190 F.3d 1224, 1228 (11th Cir. 1999), superseded by SSR 00-4p, 2000 WL 1898704 (Dec. 4, 2000), on other grounds as stated in Washington v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 906 F.3d 1353, 1360-61 (11th Cir. 2018). The claimant must prove at step one that he is not undertaking substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i). At step two, the claimant must prove that he is suffering from a severe impairment or combination of impairments thatsignificantly limits his ability to perform basic work-related activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). At step three, if the impairment meets one of the listed impairments in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of Part 404 (Listing of Impairments), the claimant will be considered disabled without consideration of age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). At step four, if the claimant is unable to prove the existence of a listed impairment, he must prove that his impairment prevents performance of past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). At step five, the regulations direct the Commissioner to consider the claimant's residual functional capacity ("RFC"), age, education, and past work experience to determine whether the claimant can perform other work besides past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). The Commissioner must produce evidence that there is other work available in the national economy that the claimant has the capacity to perform. Doughty, 245 F.3d at 1278 n.2. To be considered disabled, the claimant must prove an inability to perform the jobs that the Commissioner lists. Id.
If at any step in the sequence a claimant can be found disabled or not disabled, the sequential evaluation ceases and further inquiry ends. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). Despite the shifting of burdens at step five, the overall burden rests on the claimant to prove that he is unable to engage in any substantialgainful activity that exists in the national economy. Doughty, 245 F.3d at 1278 n.2; Boyd v. Heckler, 704 F.2d 1207, 1209 (11th Cir. 1983), superseded by statute on other grounds by 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5), as recognized in Elam v. R.R. Ret. Bd., 921 F.2d 1210, 1214 (11th Cir. 1991).
A limited scope of judicial review applies to a denial of Social Security benefits by the Commissioner. Judicial review of the administrative decision addresses three questions: (1) whether the proper legal standards were applied; (2) whether there was substantial evidence to support the findings of fact; and (3) whether the findings of fact resolved the crucial issues. Washington v. Astrue, 558 F. Supp. 2d 1287, 1296 (N.D. Ga. 2008); Fields v. Harris, 498 F. Supp. 478, 488 (N.D. Ga. 1980). This Court may not decide the facts anew, reweigh the evidence, or substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner. Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206, 1210 (11th Cir. 2005). If substantial evidence supports the Commissioner's factual findings and the Commissioner applies the proper legal standards, the Commissioner's findings are conclusive. Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1439-40 (11th Cir. 1997); Barnes v. Sullivan, 932 F.2d 1356, 1358 (11th Cir. 1991); Martin v. Sullivan, 894 F.2d 1520, 1529 (11th Cir. 1990); Walker v. Bowen, 826 F.2d 996, 999 (11th Cir. 1987) (per curiam); Hillsman v. Bowen,804 F.2d 1179, 1180 (11th Cir. 1986) (per curiam); Bloodsworth v. Heckler, 703 F.2d 1233, 1239 (11th Cir. 1983).
"Substantial evidence" means "more than a scintilla, but less than a preponderance." Bloodsworth, 703 F.2d at 1239. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, and it must be enough to justify a refusal to direct a verdict were the case before a jury. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971); Hillsman, 804 F.2d at 1180; Bloodsworth, 703 F.2d at 1239. "In determining whether substantial evidence exists, [the Court] must view the record as a whole, taking into account evidence favorable as well as unfavorable to the [Commissioner's] decision." Chester v. Bowen, 792 F.2d 129, 131 (11th Cir. 1986) (per curiam). Even where there is substantial evidence to the contrary of the Commissioner's findings, the Commissioner's decision will not be overturned where "there is substantially supportive evidence" of the decision. Barron v. Sullivan, 924 F.2d 227, 230 (11th Cir. 1991). In contrast, review of the Commissioner's application of legal principles is plenary. Foote v. Chater, 67 F.3d 1553, 1558 (11th Cir. 1995); Walker, 826 F.2d at 999.
Plaintiff was forty-nine years old as of the date of the ALJ's second decision. [R28, 292]. She had a seventh-grade education and worked as a quality supervisor making contact lenses from 1998 until June 20, 2014. [R85, 342]. She alleged disability due to bilateral ulnar nerve decompression,7 trigeminal neuralgia,8 and depression. [R341].
In an adult function report dated August 10, 2015, Plaintiff reported that on a typical day, she would take medication and lie down in bed due to dizziness. [R351]. She stated that would watch television "a little" and walk around the house and yard for about five to ten minutes "to stay active." [R351, 355]. She also reported that because of pain in both arms, she could lift only five pounds for less than one minute; she had difficulty reaching, grabbing, and using both hands; and her mother and daughter assisted her in the shower, combed her hair, and helped her dress. [R351-52, 356]. She stated, however, that she was able to drive, go out alone, and shop for her medication refills at the pharmacy. [R354].
Plaintiff first complained of upper-extremity pain to...
To continue reading
Request your trial