Lisa Cash v. Colvin
Decision Date | 19 March 2015 |
Docket Number | Civil No. TMD 14-325 |
Parties | LISA CASH, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Lisa Cash ("Plaintiff") seeks judicial review under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Defendant" or the "Commissioner") denying her applications for disability insurance benefits ("DIB") and Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. Before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment or Alternative Motion for Remand (ECF No. 11) and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 13).1 Plaintiff contends that the administrative record does not contain substantial evidence to support the Commissioner's decision that she is not disabled. No hearing is necessary. L.R. 105.6. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's Alternative Motion for Remand (ECF No. 11) is GRANTED.
Plaintiff was born in 1964, has a college education, and previously worked as a program director/account manager, public health analyst, project manager/senior research analyst, consultant, and director of research and education. R. at 25, 214. Plaintiff applied for DIB protectively on September 8, 2011, and for SSI on September 10, 2011, alleging disability beginning on May 24, 2011, due to lumbar and cervical spinal stenosis, lumbar degenerative disc disease, and facet arthritis. R. at 17, 179-89, 213. The Commissioner denied Plaintiff's applications initially and again on reconsideration, so Plaintiff requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"). R. at 56-111. On June 18, 2013, ALJ Eugene Bond held a hearing at which Plaintiff pro se and a vocational expert ("VE") testified. R. at 32-55. On July 25, 2013, the ALJ issued a decision finding Plaintiff not disabled from the alleged onset date of disability of May 24, 2011, through the date of the decision. R. at 14-31. Plaintiff sought review of this decision by the Appeals Council, which denied Plaintiff's request for review on December 5, 2013. R. at 1-13. The ALJ's decision thus became the final decision of the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.981, 416.1481; see also Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103, 106-07, 120 S. Ct. 2080, 2083 (2000).
On February 2, 2014, Plaintiff filed a complaint in this Court seeking review of the Commissioner's decision. Upon the parties' consent, this case was transferred to a United States Magistrate Judge for final disposition and entry of judgment. The case subsequently was reassigned to the undersigned. The parties have briefed the issues, and the matter is now fully submitted.
The ALJ noted in his decision:
In September 2011, [Plaintiff] was involved in a motor vehicle accident where she injured her right forearm. [Plaintiff] complained of right forearm burning and pain. [Plaintiff] was the driver of the vehicle, and there was front impact and the air bags deployed. She reported that she had pain in her neck, arms to her shoulder blades, low back, and legs to her buttocks. Lumbosacral spine films noted spondylolisthesis at the L4-5 level, Degenerative [sic] disc disease was seen at L5-S1 and facet degenerative changes were noted in the low lumbar spine as well. [Plaintiff] was diagnosed with cervical and lumbosacral spine strains superimposed upon her chronic cervical and lumbosacral pain.
R. at 23 (citations omitted); see R. at 341, 346, 357, 359-60.
The ALJ also noted:
In November 2011, [Plaintiff] reported that she was still getting neck pain, at least 4/10, and 3/10 with medications. [An] MRI of the thoracic pain [sic] revealed mild upper thoracic disk bulging. Surgery was recommended to [Plaintiff] in December 2011. In January 2013, [Plaintiff] underwent L4-5 laminectomy and posterior fusion extending from L3 to S1.
R. at 23 (citations omitted); see R. at 373, 441, 470.
R. at 23 (citations and footnote omitted); see R. at 446.
In August 2011, Dr. Babak Arvanaghi, [Plaintiff's] treating physician, opined that [Plaintiff] was disabled by her condition, which restricts her activitiesand provides limitations to her abilities. He opined that these limitations were permanent, and precluded her from engaging in any gainful employment opportunities. In December 2012, Dr. Babak Arvanaghi[] opined that [Plaintiff] has become disabled by her condition, which restricts her activities and provides permanent limitations in her abilities that preclude her from engaging in any gainful employment opportunities. He noted that these limitations and her level of have [sic] increased since a September 2011 car accident. He opined that based on the underlying cause of [Plaintiff's] condition is [sic] degenerative disc disease, her condition will only continue to worsen over time.
R. at 23-24 (citations omitted); see R. at 460, 494.
On December 19, 2011, a state agency medical consultant, E. Nakhuda, M.D., assessed Plaintiff's physical residual functional capacity ("RFC"). R. at 62-63, 70-71. Dr. Nakhuda opined that Plaintiff could (1) lift and/or carry 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently; (2) stand and/or walk for a total of two hours in an eight-hour workday; (3) sit for about six hours in an eight-hour workday; and (4) perform unlimited pushing and/or pulling. R. at 62, 70. Plaintiff occasionally could balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, crawl, and climb ramps and stairs (but never ladders, ropes, or scaffolds). R. at 63, 71. Plaintiff had no manipulative, visual, communicative, or environmental limitations. R. at 63, 71. On July 17, 2012, Gurcharan Singh, M.D., another state agency consultant, affirmed Dr. Nakhuda's opinion. R. at 82-83, 92-93.
At the hearing, Plaintiff read her opening statement:
To continue reading
Request your trial