Lean v. Saul

• Decision Date: 31 July 2019
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 18-505 SCY
• Parties: ERNESTO M. LEAN, Plaintiff, v. ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico

ERNESTO M. LEAN, Plaintiff, v. ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security,¹ Defendant.

Civ. No. 18-505 SCY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

July 31, 2019

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER²

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Social Security Administrative Record filed September 4, 2018, Doc. 12, in support of Plaintiff Ernesto M. Lean's Complaint, Doc. 1, seeking review of the decision of Defendant Andrew Saul, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, denying Plaintiff's claim for disability insurance benefits under Title II and Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 401 et seq. On January 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed her Motion To Remand For Payment Of Benefits, Or In The Alternative, For Rehearing, With Supporting Memorandum. Doc. 21. The Commissioner filed a Brief in Response on March 18, 2019, Doc. 22, and Plaintiff filed a Reply on April 12, 2019, Doc. 23. The Court has jurisdiction to review the Commissioner's final decision under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c). Having meticulously reviewed the entire record and the applicable law and being fully advised in the premises, the Court finds the Motion is not well taken and is DENIED.

Background and Procedural Record

Claimant Ernesto M. Lean³ suffers from the following severe impairments: pituitary macroadenoma; headaches; lumbar spine and cervical spine degenerative disc disease; bilateral bunions and hallux valgus; diabetes; psychosis, not otherwise specified; major depression, recurrent; PTSD; and methamphetamine abuse, in remission. Administrative Record ("AR") at 14. She alleges that she became disabled as of November 25, 2013. AR 11. She has a high school degree and completed two years of college for an associate's degree. AR 321, 1078. She has past work as a caregiver and a fry cook. AR 117-19.

On May 6, 2014, Ms. Lean filed a claim of disability under Titles II and XVI. AR 152. Her applications were initially denied on September 4, 2014, AR 152-53, and upon reconsideration on March 23, 2015, AR 170-71. Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") James Bentley conducted a hearing on December 22, 2016. AR 108. Ms. Lean appeared in person at the hearing with attorney representative Don Smith. AR 108. The ALJ took testimony from Ms. Lean and an impartial vocational expert ("VE"), Amy Donaldson. AR 108.

On May 17, 2017, ALJ Bentley issued an unfavorable decision. AR 8. The Appeals Council denied review on April 21, 2018, noting that Ms. Lean submitted additional evidence but declining to consider it. AR 1-2. The ALJ's decision is the Commissioner's final decision for purposes of judicial review. Ms. Lean proceeded to federal court on May 31, 2018. Doc. 1. Because the parties are familiar with Ms. Lean's medical history, the Court reserves discussion of the medical records relevant to this appeal for its analysis.

Applicable Law

A. Disability Determination Process

An individual is considered disabled if she 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 not less than 12 months." 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A) (pertaining to disability insurance benefits); see also id. § 1382(a)(3)(A) (pertaining to supplemental security income disability benefits for adult individuals). The Social Security Commissioner has adopted the familiar five-step sequential evaluation process ("SEP") to determine whether a person satisfies the statutory criteria as follows:

(1) At step one, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant is engaged in "substantial gainful activity."⁴ If the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity, she is not disabled regardless of her medical condition.

(2) At step two, the ALJ must determine the severity of the claimed physical or mental impairment(s). If the claimant does not have an impairment(s) or combination of impairments that is severe and meets the duration requirement, she is not disabled.

(3) At step three, the ALJ must determine whether a claimant's impairment(s) meets or equals in severity one of the listings described in Appendix 1 of the regulations and meets the duration requirement. If so, a claimant is presumed disabled.

(4) If, however, the claimant's impairments do not meet or equal in severity one of the listings described in Appendix 1 of the regulations, the ALJ must determine at step four whether the claimant can perform her "past relevant work." Answering this question involves three phases. Winfrey v. Chater, 92 F.3d 1017, 1023 (10th Cir. 1996). First, the ALJ considers all of the relevant medical and other evidence and determines what is "themost [claimant] can still do despite [her physical and mental] limitations." 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1). This is called the claimant's residual functional capacity ("RFC"). Id. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 416.945(a)(3). Second, the ALJ determines the physical and mental demands of claimant's past work. Third, the ALJ determines whether, given claimant's RFC, the claimant is capable of meeting those demands. A claimant who is capable of returning to past relevant work is not disabled.

(5) If the claimant does not have the RFC to perform her past relevant work, the Commissioner, at step five, must show that the claimant is able to perform other work in the national economy, considering the claimant's RFC, age, education, and work experience. If the Commissioner is unable to make that showing, the claimant is deemed disabled. If, however, the Commissioner is able to make the required showing, the claimant is deemed not disabled.

See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4) (disability insurance benefits); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4) (supplemental security income disability benefits); Fischer-Ross v. Barnhart, 431 F.3d 729, 731 (10th Cir. 2005); Grogan v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 1257, 1261 (10th Cir. 2005).

The claimant has the initial burden of establishing a disability in the first four steps of this analysis. Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 n.5 (1987). The burden shifts to the Commissioner at step five to show that the claimant is capable of performing work in the national economy. Id. A finding that the claimant is disabled or not disabled at any point in the five-step review is conclusive and terminates the analysis. Casias v. Sec'y of Health & Human Serv., 933 F.2d 799, 801 (10th Cir. 1991).

B. Standard of Review

This Court must affirm the Commissioner's denial of social security benefits unless (1) the decision is not supported by "substantial evidence" or (2) the ALJ did not apply the proper legal standards in reaching the decision. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Hamlin v. Barnhart, 365 F.3d 1208, 1214 (10th Cir. 2004); Langley v. Barnhart, 373 F.3d 1116, 1118 (10th Cir. 2004); Casias, 933 F.2d at 800-01. In making these determinations, the Court "neither reweigh[s] theevidence nor substitute[s] [its] judgment for that of the agency.'" Bowman v. Astrue, 511 F.3d 1270, 1272 (10th Cir. 2008). "[W]hatever the meaning of 'substantial' in other contexts, the threshold for such evidentiary sufficiency is not high." Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1154 (2019). Substantial evidence "is 'more than a mere scintilla.'" Id. (quoting Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). "It means—and means only—such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

A decision "is not based on substantial evidence if it is overwhelmed by other evidence in the record," Langley, 373 F.3d at 1118, or "constitutes mere conclusion," Musgrave v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 1371, 1374 (10th Cir. 1992). The agency decision must "provide this court with a sufficient basis to determine that appropriate legal principles have been followed." Jensen v. Barnhart, 436 F.3d 1163, 1165 (10th Cir. 2005). Therefore, although an ALJ is not required to discuss every piece of evidence, "the record must demonstrate that the ALJ considered all of the evidence," and "the [ALJ's] reasons for finding a claimant not disabled" must be "articulated with sufficient particularity." Clifton v. Chater, 79 F.3d 1007, 1009-10 (10th Cir. 1996). But where the reviewing court "can follow the adjudicator's reasoning" in conducting its review, "and can determine that correct legal standards have been applied, merely technical omissions in the ALJ's reasoning do not dictate reversal." Keyes-Zachary v. Astrue, 695 F.3d 1156, 1166 (10th Cir. 2012). The court "should, indeed must, exercise common sense." Id. "The more comprehensive the ALJ's explanation, the easier [the] task; but [the court] cannot insist on technical perfection." Id.

Analysis

In support of her Motion to Remand, Ms. Lean raises three main arguments. First, she argues that the ALJ erred at step four by improperly: assessing the effects of Ms. Lean's headaches; disregarding treating psychiatrist Dr. Nathaniel Sharon's opinion assigning a Global Assessment of Functioning ("GAF") score; rejecting the opinion of LASAC Don Smith, Ms. Lean's treating counselor; assessing Ms. Lean's social limitations; rejecting the opinion of Dr. Camellia Clark, consultative examiner; rejecting the opinion of PA Lucas Lujan, her treating physician assistant; and assessing Ms. Lean's subjective symptom evidence. Doc. 21 at 9-21. Second, she argues that the ALJ erred at step five by failing to resolve a conflict between the VE testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles ("DOT"). Doc. 21 at 21-22. Finally, she argues that the Appeals Council should have considered her new evidence. Doc. 21 at 23-27. Ms. Lean argues for this Court to reverse and remand with instructions for the Commissioner to issue disability benefits; in the alternative, she requests a remand for rehearing. Doc. 21 at 27.

I. The ALJ Did Not Err At Step Four.

In assessing a claimant's RFC at step four, the ALJ must consider the combined effect...