Martin v. Astrue
| Decision Date | 29 February 2012 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2:11-cv-264 |
| Parties | Sonya Martin, Plaintiff, v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio |
Plaintiff, Sonya Martin, filed this action seeking review of a decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying her applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Those applications were filed in January, 2007, and alleged that plaintiff became disabled on January 2, 2005.
After initial administrative denials of her claim, plaintiff was given a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge on September 16, 2009. In a decision dated October 29, 2009, the ALJ denied benefits. That became the Commissioner's final decision on February 3, 2011, when the Appeals Council denied review.
After plaintiff filed this case, the Commissioner filed the administrative record on June 21, 2011. Plaintiff filed her statement of specific errors on August 19, 2011. The Commissioner filed a response on October 25, 2011. No reply brief was filed, and the case is now ready to decide.
Plaintiff's testimony at the administrative hearing is found at pages 29 through 40 of the record. Plaintiff, who was 48 years old at the time of the hearing and is a high school graduate, testified as follows.
Plaintiff worked as an assembler and, more recently, at a Bob Evans restaurant, but only part-time. She had to stop working as an assembler due to illness. Her major problems are pain in her back, neck, arms and knees, as well as breathing difficulties. She takes a number of medications, one of which makes her tired. Back pain and muscle spasms make it hard for her to sleep at night.
Plaintiff testified that she has tried to walk for ten or fifteen minutes at a time but cannot do so. Sitting in a chair hurts her back and neck. She can sit for twenty minutes and then has to stand for fifteen or twenty minutes. Recently she has experienced problems using her hands. She can lift about five pounds and do some light housework and cooking. She has assistance when she shops for groceries.
In a typical day, plaintiff gets her daughter ready for school and walks with her the two blocks to the school. She does housework sporadically and rests because of her inability to sleep at night. She has had a cane prescribed for her, and she is also depressed. She might nap twice a day. Her children assist her with household chores.
The medical records in this case are found beginning on page 257 of the administrative record. They can be summarized as follows.
Dr. Brown began seeing plaintiff on September 30, 1996. He reported on March 1, 2007, that she suffered from a wide variety of ailments and that she had been prescribed four different medications. She suffered from persistent fatigue and joint pain. However, he did not believe she was significantly limited from performing work-related activities.
Dr. McCloud, a state agency reviewer, reviewed medical records and concluded, on March 12, 2007, that plaintiff waslimited to medium work activity. He noted that only the x-rays of her lumbar spine showed any abnormalities, that she had bursitis in her left hip and some occasional giving away of her left knee, and that she had mild COPD or asthma. A subsequent state agency reviewer, Dr. Vasiloff, thought she was limited to light work and imposed a restriction on exposure to fumes, odors, dusts, gases, and poor ventilation due to her asthma and mild COPD.
Plaintiff was evaluated by Dr. Villanueva based on two appointments, on March 15 and March 19, 2007. At that time, she did not need ambulatory aids. She had been referred to physical therapy for her bursitis and knee problems. Her diagnoses were diabetes, controlled, hypothyroidism, generalized arthritis, asthma, and mild COPD. Dr. Villanueva did not believe plaintiff had any inability to stand, walk, sit, hear, see, and speak, and her lifting would be limited by her back pain. In December of 2007, however, Dr. Villanueva completed a form stating that plaintiff could only sit for two hours in a day, stand and walk for only one hour, lift only five pounds occasionally, had significant limitations in repetitive reaching, handling, and fingering, had psychological limitations, and could not work on a sustained basis. He repeated that information on August 28, 2009.
Plaintiff underwent a psychological evaluation on May 16, 2007. She had never had any mental health care. Her ability to work at that time was limited by a bladder problem, for which she was to have surgery. She reported some mood swings. The diagnoses included an adjustment disorder with depressed mood, and her GAF was rated at 55, but had been as high as 65 in the past year. Only mild impairment in her work abilities was noted, particularly in the area of relating to others due to her bladder problems. A state agency reviewer concluded that plaintiff'smental impairment was not severe.
In January, 2008, Dr. Song completed a lumbar spine residual functional capacity questionnaire. He reported having treated plaintiff for about nine months and had diagnosed her with chronic lumbosacral sprain and other back problems. Her prognosis was fair but chronic. His examinations revealed reflex changes, tenderness, swelling, muscle spasm, and muscle weakness. He thought her symptoms would occasionally interfere with her concentration, but she could not either sit, stand or walk for an entire work day. She did not need a cane, but did need to take three to four unscheduled breaks a day, and would have four or more days a month when she would be absent from work. She had other restrictions as well. He had previously reported to Dr. Villanueva on an examination performed on April 11, 2007, noting that plaintiff had been experiencing back pain for many years but now was complaining of left hip and left knee pain. His impression at that time was chronic lumbosacral sprain with left radiculopathy and internal derangement of the left knee. Dr. Song subsequently referred plaintiff to Dr. Lingam for spinal injections, and that specialist also diagnosed degenerative disc disease as well as spondylosis, sacroiliac syndrome, and myofascial pain syndrome. Dr. Lingam reported in March, 2009, that plaintiff could not perform even a full range of sedentary work.
Dr. Moncman, a neurosurgeon, also examined plaintiff pursuant to a referral from Dr. Villanueva, and he found that she had a full range of motion of the lumbar spine, could walk heel to toe and squat, could forward bend fully at the waist, and had normal muscle strength and reflexes. However, her sacroiliac joints were tender to the touch. He thought she suffered from mechanical low back pain.
Plaintiff's back was x-rayed on June 4, 2008. The studyshowed mild degenerative disc disease at L2-3 and L4-5 and degenerative changes of the facet joints at L3-4 and L4-5. A prior MRI showed roughly the same findings.
The last exhibit admitted prior to the administrative hearing was a radiology report from Madison County Hospital. It showed degenerative disc disease throughout the cervical spine. The remaining medical records (Exhibits 37F through 45F) were apparently submitted only to the Appeals Council.
Mr. Braunig, a vocational expert, also testified at the administrative hearing. His testimony begins at page 40. He noted that plaintiff had worked as a press operator, a motor vehicle assembler, and a prep cook. The jobs were either light or medium, and either unskilled or semi-skilled. He was asked questions about a hypothetical person who could work at the light exertional level, could lift no more than ten pounds, who would have to sit fifteen minutes out of each hour, who could not reach overhead, and who was limited to simple tasks involving only a minimal degree of personal contact in the workplace and without production quotas. Such a person could do a variety of light jobs such as mail clerk, office helper, and photocopy machine operator. If the person were limited to sedentary work with a sit-stand option, that person could work in jobs such as microfilm document preparer and lens inserter. He further testified that if plaintiff would have to miss three or four days of work per month, she would not be employable, and that would be so if she had to take three or four unscheduled breaks during a work day.
The Administrative Law Judge's decision appears at pages 12 through 24 of the administrative record. The important findings in that decision are as follows.
The Administrative Law Judge found, first, that plaintiff met the insured requirements of the Social Security Act through March 31, 2007. Next, he found that plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity from her alleged onset date of January 2, 2005 through the date of the decision. As far as plaintiff's impairments are concerned, the ALJ found that plaintiff had severe impairments including degenerative disc disease and vertebrogenic disorder of the cervical spine, degenerative joint disease of the thoracic spine, chronic lumbar strain, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and adjustment disorder with depressed mood. The ALJ also found that these impairments did not meet or equal the requirements of any section of the Listing of Impairments (20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1).
Moving to the next step of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ found that plaintiff had the residual functional capacity to perform a reduced range of light work which does not require lifting more than ten pounds or overhead reaching, which does not involve production quotas, which is limited to simple tasks, and which allows for sitting fifteen minutes out of every hour. The ALJ accepted the...
To continue reading
Request your trial