Johnson v. U.S. Comm'r, CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:17-1371
| Decision Date | 11 February 2019 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:17-1371 |
| Parties | DIONNE JOHNSON v. U.S. COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana |
Before the Court is an appeal of the Commissioner's finding of non-disability. Considering the administrative record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commissioner's decision be REVERSED AND REMANDED.
The claimant, Dionne Johnson, fully exhausted her administrative remedies prior to filing this action in federal court. The claimant filed an application for disability insurance benefits ("DIB") under Title II of the Social Security Act (the "Act") on May 24, 2014 and supplemental security income benefits ("SSI") under Title XVI of the Act on May 27, 2014. Under Title II, the claimant alleged disability from January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2015 (the last date she was last insured).1 Under Title XVI, she alleged disability from January 1, 2013 through July 27, 2016,the date of the ALJ's decision.2 The claimant's application for DIB and SSI was denied on October 8, 2014.3 The claimant requested a hearing, which was held on May 19, 2016 before Administrative Law Judge Doug Gabbard, II.4 The ALJ issued a decision on July 27, 2016,5 concluding that although the claimant had the severe impairments of arthritis in the left knee and right ankle, COPD, morbid obesity, major depressive disorder, and generalized anxiety disorder, the claimant nevertheless retained the residual functional capacity to perform certain medium level work and was not, therefore, considered "disabled" under the Social Security Act at any time from the date her application was filed through the date of the ALJ's decision.
The claimant asked for review of the decision, and the Appeals Council denied the claimants' request for a review on August 22, 2017.6 Therefore, ALJ Gabbard's July 26, 2016 decision became the final decision of the Commissioner for the purpose of the Court's review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §405(g). The claimant then filed this action seeking review of the Commissioner's decision.
Because the two periods for which benefits are sought under Title II and Title XVI overlap, the undersigned will address the adjudicated period as one period, that is, from January 1, 2013 through July 26, 2016.
The claimant was born on October 22, 1969 and is considered a "younger person" at all times throughout the proceedings.7 The claimant has past work as a home health aide and a certified nurse's aid, both jobs that were medium in exertional level, but were deemed "heavy" as actually performed.8 The claimant had a steady work record from 1990 to 2012, with the exception of 1999 and 2000 when she had virtually no earnings. The claimant alleges that she has been disabled since January 1, 2013 due to anxiety, depression, arthritis, COPD, high blood pressure, and inability to walk more than 20 steps without having to sit to breathe.9
Judicial review of the Commissioner's denial of disability benefits is limited to determining whether substantial evidence supports the decision and whether theproper legal standards were used in evaluating the evidence.10 "Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla, less than a preponderance, and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion."11 Substantial evidence "must do more than create a suspicion of the existence of the fact to be established, but 'no substantial evidence' will only be found when there is a 'conspicuous absence of credible choices' or 'no contrary medical evidence.'"12
If the Commissioner's findings are supported by substantial evidence, then they are conclusive and must be affirmed.13 In reviewing the Commissioner's findings, a court must carefully examine the entire record, but refrain from re-weighing the evidence or substituting its judgment for that of the Commissioner.14 Conflicts in the evidence and credibility assessments are for the Commissioner to resolve, not thecourts.15 Four elements of proof are weighed by the courts in determining if substantial evidence supports the Commissioner's determination: (1) objective medical facts, (2) diagnoses and opinions of treating and examining physicians, (3) the claimant's subjective evidence of pain and disability, and (4) the claimant's age, education and work experience.16
The Disability Insurance Benefit ("DIB") program provides income to individuals who are forced into involuntary, premature retirement, provided they are both insured and disabled, regardless of indigence.17 Every individual who meets certain income and resource requirements, has filed an application for benefits, and is determined to be disabled is eligible to receive Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") benefits.18
The term "disabled" or "disability" means 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 canbe expected to last for a continuous period of not less than twelve months."19 A claimant shall be determined to be disabled only if his physical or mental impairment or impairments are so severe that he is unable to not only do his previous work, but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, participate in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in significant numbers in the national economy, regardless of whether such work exists in the area in which the claimant lives, whether a specific job vacancy exists, or whether the claimant would be hired if he applied for work.20
The Commissioner uses a sequential five-step inquiry to determine whether a claimant is disabled. This process required the ALJ to determine whether the claimant (1) is currently working; (2) has a severe impairment; (3) has an impairment listed in or medically equivalent to those in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1; (4) is able to do the kind of work he did in the past; and (5) can perform any other work at step five.21 If it is determined at any step of that process that a claimant is oris not disabled, the sequential process ends. "A finding that a claimant is disabled or is not disabled at any point in the five-step review is conclusive and terminates the analysis."22
Before going from step three to step four, the Commissioner assesses the claimant's residual functional capacity23 by determining the most the claimant can still do despite his physical and mental limitations based on all relevant evidence in the record.24 The claimant's residual functional capacity is used at the fourth step to determine if he can still do his past relevant work and at the fifth step to determine whether he can adjust to any other type of work.25
The claimant bears the burden of proof on the first four steps.26 At the fifth step, however, the Commissioner bears the burden of showing that the claimant can perform other substantial work in the national economy.27 This burden may besatisfied by reference to the Medical-Vocational Guidelines of the regulations, by expert vocational testimony, or by other similar evidence.28 If the Commissioner makes the necessary showing at step five, the burden shifts back to the claimant to rebut this finding.29 If the Commissioner determines that the claimant is disabled or not disabled at any step, the analysis ends.30
The ALJ determined that despite the claimant's severe impairments, she retains the residual functional capacity to perform medium level jobs with certain restrictions, and that there are jobs in significant numbers in the national economy that the claimant can perform, including handpacker and small products assembler.31
The claimant challenges the ALJ's failure to properly consider the combined effects of her impairments on her ability to perform medium work; the failure to assign hypertension and cardiovascular irregularities as severe impairments; the useof a "sit and squirm" test at the administrative hearing; the Appeals' Council's failure to consider the post-hearing evidence submitted by the claimant; and the use of a defective hypothetical at the claimant's hearing.
Hypertension and cardiovascular irregularities
The claimant alleges the ALJ erred in failing to assign the claimant's hypertension and cardiovascular irregularities as severe impairments.
The ALJ found that the claimant's arthritis in the left knee and right ankle, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ("COPD"), morbid obesity, major depressive disorder, and generalized anxiety disorder were severe impairments under the Act, but that her hypertension, allergic rhinitis, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and tobacco abuse were not severe. Tr. 12-13. The claimant argues the ALJ committed reversible error by not finding her hypertension and cardiac issues to be severe impairments.
As an initial matter, the undersigned notes that disability determinations are based on functional limitations rather than the mere existence of a condition. Milam v. Bowen, 782 F.2d 1284, 1286 (5th Cir. 1986) ( ). Here, the ALJ recognized that the claimant had been diagnosed with hypertension but also noted that her medicalrecords showed no associated functional limitations (Tr. 13). Reviewing medical notes from an April 21, 2016 visit to a cardiologist, the ALJ specifically noted:
She was assessed with malignant hypertension, but without complications. She may not have achieved perfect control of her hypertension...
To continue reading
Request your trial