Martin v. Berryhill
| Decision Date | 24 January 2019 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 5:17cv256-CJK |
| Parties | MISTY ANNE MARTIN, Plaintiff, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida |
This case is before the court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3) for review of the final determination of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") denying Misty Anne Martin's application for Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB") under Title II of the Social Security Act ("Act"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-34, and Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") under Title XVI of the Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381-83. The parties consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73 for all proceedings in this case, including entry of final judgment. Upon review of the record before the court, I conclude the Administrative Law Judge's ("ALJ") evaluation of plaintiff's subjective symptoms is not supported by substantial evidence. The decision of the Commissioner, therefore, should be remanded for additional proceedings consistent with this order.
Ms. Martin, who will be referred to as claimant, plaintiff, or by name, claims: (1) the ALJ "erroneously evaluated Ms. Martin's testimony regarding her symptoms and limitations"; and (2) the ALJ-formulated residual functional capacity ("RFC") is not supported by substantial evidence. (Doc. 18).
On January 24, 2014, plaintiff protectively filed an application for DIB, claiming disability beginning July 22, 2012, due to hypothyroidism, fibromyalgia, high blood pressure, migraines, and obesity.1 T. 100.2 The Commissioner denied the applications initially and on reconsideration. T. 108, 124. After a hearing on March 21, 2016, the ALJ found claimant not disabled under the Act. T. 15-22. The Appeals Council denied a request for further review and, as a result, the ALJ's decision became the final determination of the Commissioner. T. 1-3. The Commissioner's determination is now before the court for review.
A federal court reviews the "Commissioner's decision to determine if it is supported by substantial evidence and based upon proper legal standards." Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1439 (11th Cir. 1997); see also Carnes v. Sullivan, 936 F.2d 1215, 1218 (11th Cir. 1991) (). Substantial evidence is "'such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.'" Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) (quoting Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). "Substantial evidence is something 'more than a mere scintilla, but less than a preponderance.'" Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206, 1210 (11th Cir. 2005) (quoting Hale v. Bowen, 831 F.2d 1007, 1011 (11th Cir. 1987)). "Even if the evidence preponderates against the [Commissioner], [the court] must affirm if the decision is supported by substantial evidence." Sewell v. Bowen, 792 F.2d 1065, 1067 (11th Cir. 1986).
When reviewing a Social Security disability case, the court "'may not decide the facts anew, reweigh the evidence, or substitute [its] judgment for that of the [Commissioner.]'" Martin v. Sullivan, 894 F.2d 1520, 1529 (11th Cir. 1990) (quoting Bloodsworth v. Heckler, 703 F.2d 1233, 1239 (11th Cir. 1983)); see also Hunter v. Soc. Sec. Admin., Comm'r, 808 F.3d 818, 822 (11th Cir. 2015) () (citing Black Diamond Coal Min. Co. v. Dir., OWCP, 95 F.3d 1079, 1082 (11th Cir. 1996)). The reviewing court, however, may not look "only to those parts of the record which support the ALJ[,]" but instead "must view the entire record and take account of evidence in the record which detracts from the evidence relied on by the ALJ." Tieniber v. Heckler, 720 F.2d 1251, 1253 (11th Cir. 1983). Review is deferential to a point, but the reviewing court conducts what has been referred to as "an independent review of the record." Flynn v. Heckler, 768 F.2d 1273, 1273 (11th Cir. 1985).
The Social Security Act defines disability as an "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 can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months." 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A). To qualify as a disability, the physical or mental impairment must be so severe the plaintiff not only is unable to do her previous work, "but cannot, considering [her] age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy[.]" Id. §§ 423(d)(2)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(B).
Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4) and 416.920(a)(4), the Commissioner analyzes a disability claim in five steps:
1. If the claimant is performing substantial gainful activity, she is not disabled.
2. If the claimant is not performing substantial gainful activity, her impairments must be severe before she can be found disabled.
3. If the claimant is not performing substantial gainful activity and she has severe impairments that have lasted or are expected to last for a continuous period of at least 12 months, and if her impairments meet or medically equal the criteria of any impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, the claimant is presumed disabled without further inquiry.
4. If the claimant's impairments do not prevent her from performing her past relevant work, she is not disabled.3
5. Even if the claimant's impairments prevent her from performing her past relevant work, if other jobs exist in significant numbers in the national economy that accommodate the claimant's RFC and vocational factors, she is not disabled.
In her written decision, the ALJ made several findings relative to the issues raised in this appeal:
• Claimant has the following severe impairments: degenerative disc disease, obesity, migraines, carpal tunnel syndrome, and hypothyroidism. T. 17.
• Claimant has the RFC to lift up to 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently; stand and walk up to 6 hours and sit up to 6 hours in an 8-hour day with normal breaks; occasionally climb ramps or stairs; never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; occasionally balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, or crawl; should not operate moving or hazardous machinery or work around unprotected heights; and frequently bilaterally handle objects. T. 19-20.
• Claimant has not been under a disability, as defined in the Act, from July 22, 2012, through June 2, 2016. T. 22.
At the March 2016 hearing, Ms. Martin testified about her health, daily activities, and work history. Born on December 24, 1974, she is 5'4'' and weighs about 270 pounds. T. 67-68. She has a GED and completed one year of college. T. 67. She worked as a document clerk from 2007 to 2009. T. 70-72, 92. From 2010 to 2012, she worked as a customer service representative, but stopped because her "thyroid was acting up and [she] was losing [her] voice . . . for two or three days at a time." T. 69-70. She subsequently attended a culinary arts program at Gulf Coast State College, but stopped in January 2014 due to neck and back pain that radiated to her legs. T. 74-76.
Ms. Martin estimated she can stand "maybe five or ten minutes." T. 85. She can walk short distances but has "to sit down after a few minutes." T. 84-85. She can sit for 10 to 20 minutes before needing to get up. T. 85, 87.
Claimant testified she has migraines that T. 79. "[T]hen [she starts] sweating and [her] eye will start tearing up." T. 79-80. Her "neck starts to really hurt." T. 80. To alleviate the migraines, she goes into the bedroom, turns off the lights, turns on a fan, and lays down. T. 80. She takes Topamax twice a day to prevent migraines, and Fioricet to treat them at their onset. T. 80. Despite taking these medications, the migraines "still hit at least once a week" and last an average of 10 to 12 hours. T. 80.
As part of the disability application process, Walter Harris, M.D., reviewed Ms. Martin's medical records on May 6, 2014, and offered an opinion as to functional limitations. T. 119-22. Dr. Harris concluded plaintiff could occasionally lift and/or carry 20 pounds, frequently lift and/or carry 10 pounds, stand and/or walk for about 6 hours in an 8-hour workday, and sit for about 6 hours in an 8-hour workday. T. 120. With respect to postural limitations, Dr. Harris found claimant could frequently climb ramps or stairs, and never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds. T. 120-21. The doctor also noted "[claimant] does not have [a diagnosis] of fibromyalgia documented in [the medical evidence of record]." T. 122.
Medical records from The NeuroPain Center also appear in the record. In March and April of 2015, plaintiff reported she experienced two migraines a week which lasted from 30 minutes to 12 hours; associated symptoms included photosensitivity, phonosensitivity, nausea, and dizziness. T. 478, 483. She utilized Fioricet as abortive therapy. T. 478, 483. Staff at the Center ordered a brain MRI to evaluate the dizziness and headaches. T. 478, 481, 487. In May 2015, staff also ordered x-rays of the cervical and lumbar spine to evaluate plaintiff's complaints of back pain. T. 473-77.
X-rays of the lumbar spine taken on May 13, 2015, showed "Grade 1 anterolisthesis of L4 and L5," as well as "mild degenerative disc disease at L5-S1." T. 471. The x-rays of the cervical spine showed "minimal straightening...
To continue reading
Request your trial