Journell v. Astrue
| Decision Date | 08 May 2012 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 1:11-CV-1163 |
| Parties | SHELLEY JOURNELL, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
VERNELIS K. ARMSTRONG
Plaintiff seeks judicial review, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of Defendant's final determination denying her claim for Period of Disability and Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) under Title II of the Act, 42 U. S. C. §§ 405 et seq.. On September 8, 2011, the parties to this action consented to have the undersigned Magistrate adjudicate all further proceedings and enter judgment in this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73 (Docket No. 14). Pending are the parties' briefs on the merits (Docket Nos. 17 & 20). For the reasons that follow, the Magistrate Orders that the Commissioner's Decision be Affirmed.
On July 8, 2005, the Plaintiff, Shelley M. Journell, filed her Title II application for Period of Disability and Disability Insurance Benefits (Tr. 81-85). On or about February 2, 2006 Plaintiff's application was approved on the basis that she was unable to withstand the stress associated with day-to-day work activity (Tr. 38, 218-25, 254-55, 323-48).
On April 9, 2008, subsequent to a continuing disability review, the Social SecurityAdministration determined that Plaintiff's disability had ended on April 1, 2008 (Tr. 39-49, 4648). On July 13, 2009, the Disability Hearing Officer upheld this determination upon reconsideration. (Tr. 41, 50-61). On August 20, 2009, Plaintiff timely filed a request for a hearing (Ex. 66). On February 10, 2010, a hearing was held before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Richard N. Staples with Plaintiff, represented by her attorney, medical expert Hershel Goren, M.D. and Vocational Expert Mark A. Anderson all giving testimony (Tr. 537-65).
On March 10, 2010, ALJ Staples issued a Notice of Decision-Unfavorable (Tr. 20-26). On March 16, 2010, Plaintiff requested review of the hearing decision (Tr. 13). On April 19, 2011, the Appeals Council declined review (Tr. 6-9, 10). This left the ALJ's decision as the final decision of the Commissioner.
On June 7, 2011, Plaintiff filed her Complaint with this Court seeking judicial review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (Docket No. 1).
This Court exercises jurisdiction over the final decision of the Commissioner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). McClanahan v. Commissioner of Social Security, 474 F.3d 830, 832-33 (6th Cir. 2006).
Plaintiff was born on March 15, 1965 and was 38 years old when her disability benefits were terminated. (Tr. 174). She is a high school graduate and has past relevant work experience as a hospital unit clerk (light and semiskilled) and file clerk (light and semiskilled), bank clerk and grocery store cashier (Tr. 107 - 113, 122, 172, 174, 559 - 560).Plaintiff stated that when she was informed that her disability was under review she indicated that she would try to work if she were able, but that her depression keeps her from performing daily chores, diminishes her concentration, memory, understanding and motivation, and reduces her ability to carry out personal care (Tr. 68, 72-73, 131-132, 134, 136, 156 - 159, 162, 166-168). After she stopped working in 2004, Plaintiff reported that her daily activities included looking after her daughter, household chores, grocery shopping, preparing meals, spending time with her family, reading and watching television (Tr. 99-106).
•Late, 2005, Plaintiff was originally granted a period of disability due to Bipolar Disorder with depression, anxiety and psychotic symptoms resulting in an inability to complete an eight hours a day, 40 hours a week job or manage stress of full time work (Tr. 258). Additionally, a 12-month review to evaluate her stability assisted by treatment with medication and development of coping skills was recommended (Tr. 258).
•In October 2005, Dr. Dietz observed that "recent psychiatric records indicated that Plaintiff was improving, although not yet stabilized" (Tr. 238).
•January 2006, Dr. Meyer, M.D. found that Plaintiff was "slowly improving, but is clearly not yet stabilized or independent" (Tr. 258), and suggested a "12 month review for stabilization with medication/treatment and development of coping skills" (Tr. 258).
•Plaintiff's condition was evaluated as part of the Commissioner's continuing disability review process (Tr. 40).
• October 11, 2007, mental health records from Alternative Paths indicated enhanced symptoms of depression and resulted in Plaintiff being prescribed Invega (Tr. 296).
• October 25, 2007, it was noted that Plaintiff showed improvement from her previous status and was also provided with supportive psychotherapy (Tr. 294).
•November 8, 2007, it was noted that the Invega was providing benefit, Plaintiff was stable, but had "lots of problems," including difficulty and exhibiting signs of increased stress (Tr. 291-292). Additionally, supportive psychotherapy and advice about stress management techniques were provided (Tr. 292).
• January 30, 2008, a psychiatric nurse reported that Plaintiff exhibited flat affect, complained ofdepression, and looked stressed (Tr. 297). However, it was also noted that she was not disoriented, her speech was coherent, she had good attention and adequate concentration. Also, there was no evidence of a thought disorder, and she was not bothered by the pressure of tasks (Tr. 297 - 298). Plaintiff's insight and judgment were viewed as superficial, and she also was determined to be seclusive as well (Tr. 297-98).
•March 2008 , Plaintiff evaluated by Dr. Raia, as part of the Commissioners' continuing disability review process (Tr. 300-303), and Plaintiff informed Dr. Raia that her daily activities included doing household chores, going grocery shopping, and looking for part-time work (Tr. 302). Dr. Raia diagnosed Plaintiff with bipolar disorder and opined that Plaintiff's ability to withstand the stress and pressure associated with daily work activity was moderately impaired (Tr. 303).
•March 19, 2008, Plaintiff was evaluated by Dr. Sunbury, pursuant to referral by the SSA, with a diagnosis of bipolar I disorder, a global assessment of functioning (GAF)1 score of 52 and a determination that Plaintiff was mildly impaired in relating to others and moderately impaired in withstanding the stress and pressure associated with day to day work activity (Tr. 303).
•April, 2008, assessed Plaintiff's condition (Tr. 305-22), and determined that her condition did not meet or medically equal a listed impairment (Tr. 309-22). Dr. Casterline found that "[m]edical improvement has occurred" (Tr. 307), and she opined that Plaintiff was "able to carry out work tasks, interact with others, and tolerate routine job demands for speed and production" (Tr. 307).
Alternative Paths continued to provide Plaintiff with supportive psychotherapy (Tr. 349-55).
•January, 2009, assessed Plaintiff's condition (Tr. 356-73), and determined that Plaintiff did not meet or medically equal a listed impairment (Tr. 360-73). He found that there had been "[s]ignificant medical improvement related to [Journell's] ability to work" (Tr. 358). Dr. DeMuth also noted that Plaintiff "would be able to perform work which is simple and routine ona
sustained basis" (Tr. 358). Following the disability review, it was determined that Plaintiff was "responding very well to treatment, and continue[d] to retain psychological functioning that is within normal limits" (Tr. 46). Unlike in February 2006, when she was experiencing significant anxiety, auditory hallucinations, and paranoid delusions, there was no longer evidence of a thought disorder (Tr. 52). Plaintiff was determined to be able to understand instructions and maintain good attention and concentration (Tr. 52). She was no longer "bothered by the pressure of tasks" (Tr. 52). In all, the evidence established that Plaintiff's "ability to withstand the stress and pressure that is inherent in the workplace ha[d] increased" since the prior disability finding, such that she was able to "understand, remember and carry out a wide variety of simple to moderately complex tasks" (Tr. 52, 57).
•March 26, 2009, treatment notes reveal that Plaintiff had a tremor and was tearful, depressed, and had passive suicidal ideation, including a diagnosis of bipolar disorder II, obesity and a tremor and assigned a GAF of 55 (Tr. 381-82).
•April 30, 2009, Dr. Mehta treated Ms. Plaintiff and noted that Plaintiff initially exhibited a blunted appearance and then became tearful, had slow speech and a restricted affect, was depressed and tired, and expressed depressive ideation and an inability to work (Tr. 378). •August 13, 2009, Dr. Mehta saw Plaintiff and noted that the Plaintiff was emotionally distant, had psychomotor retardation and poor eye contact, and exhibited slow speech, a depressed and blunted affect, and slowed cognition (Tr.375).
• October 22, 2009, Dr. Mehta saw Plaintiff who complained of depression, poor energy and concentration, hopelessness, helplessness and low self-esteem which had responded to multiple antidepressants and atypical anti-psychotics (Tr.507) and Dr. Mehta completed a medical source statement addressing Plaintiff's mental capacity identifying a poor ability to use judgment, maintain attention and concentration, respond appropriately to changes in routine settings, deal with the public, relate to...
To continue reading
Request your trial