McCamant v. Comm'r, SSA, Civil Action 4:20-CV-00212-CAN
| Decision Date | 13 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 4:20-CV-00212-CAN |
| Parties | CHRISTOPHER DEAN MCCAMANT, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER, SSA, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas |
Plaintiff brings this appeal pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying his claim for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. After reviewing the Briefs submitted by the Parties, as well as the evidence contained in the administrative record, the Court finds the Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED.
On September 19, 2017, Christopher Dean McCamant (“Plaintiff”) filed an application for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) and supplemental security income (“SSI”) under Title II and under Title XVI of the Social Security Act [TR 20].[1] Plaintiff asserts an onset of disability date of August 1, 2017 [TR 20, 73]. Plaintiff was born on October 22, 1969, making him forty-seven (47) years of age at the time of alleged onset of disability and forty-nine (49) years of age at the time of the ALJ's decision [TR 17]. His age classification was defined at all relevant times as “younger person.” See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1563(c), 416.963(c). Plaintiff's application was initially denied by notice on January 11, 2018 [TR 111], and again upon reconsideration on April 12, 2018 [TR 126]. Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing (“Hearing”) by an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) [TR 131-32], which was held on April 15, 2019 [TR 49-63]. At Hearing, Plaintiff, and a vocational expert (“VE”) presented testimony. Plaintiff was represented by counsel at Hearing [TR 49]. On May 9, 2019 the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision denying Plaintiff's applications [TR 17-34]. After hearing testimony and conducting a review of the facts of Plaintiff's case, the ALJ made the following sequential evaluation [TR 17-34]. At step one, the ALJ found that Plaintiff meets the insured status requirements of the Act through December 31, 2021, and that Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since August 1, 2017 [TR 22]. At step two, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: rheumatoid arthritis and hypertension [TR 22]. At step three, the ALJ found that Plaintiff does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 C.F.R §§ 404.1520(d), 404.1525, 404.1526, 416.920(d), 416.925 and 416.926) [TR 24]. At step four, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff had the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform light work as defined in 20 C.F.R §§ 404.1567(a) and 416.967(a) with the following limitations:
[Plaintiff] has the residual functional capacity to lift and carry 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently, as well as stand and walk 2-hours out of an 8-hour workday and sit 6-hours out of an 8-hour workday. [Plaintiff] can stoop bend, squat, kneel and crouch on an occasional basis. The claimant should not climb, use ropes, ladders, or scaffolds. [Plaintiff] must avoid extremes of heat and cold. He must also avoid vibration. The claimant requires a cane to get to and from the work zone.
[TR 24]. Continuing the step four analysis, the ALJ found that Plaintiff is unable to perform any of his past relevant work as an automotive mechanic or an air conditioning installer (20 C.F.R § 404.1565 and 416.965) [TR 28]. At step five, after considering Plaintiff's age, education work experience, and RFC, the ALJ found “there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that the claimant can perform” including order clerk (DOT 209.567-014, sedentary, SVP 2; assembler (DOT 713.687-018), sedentary, SVP 2; and lens inserter (DOT 713.687-026), sedentary, SVP 2 [TR 29]. Based on this determination, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff has not been under a disability from August 1, 2017, through the date of the ALJ's decision [TR 29].[2]
On May 9, 2019, Plaintiff requested review of the ALJ's decision by the Appeals Council [TR 187-88]. On January 15, 2020, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review making the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Commissioner [TR 6-11]. On March 13, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant suit [Dkt. 1], and on September 8, 2020, the Administrative Record was received from the Social Security Administration [Dkt. 17]. On November 8, 2020, Plaintiff filed his Opening Brief [Dkt. 20], and on January 4, 2021, the Commissioner filed its Response in Support of the Commissioner's Decision [Dkt. 21].
Plaintiff argues, in part, on appeal that the record contains insufficient medical evidence for the ALJ to have made a disability determination; the Commissioner urges the record contains substantial evidence in support of the ALJ's determination. Considering these differing positions, the Court summarizes the relevant medical records.
On May 2, 2017, Plaintiff presented to the hospital emergency room with progressively worsening joint pain in his knees, ankles hip, and neck [TR 272-73]. The attending physician ordered an x-ray of Plaintiff's left knee, which revealed a moderate sized joint effusion [TR 275]. Plaintiff's record states “pain is due to [range of motion] & clears with walking” [TR 277]. Plaintiff reported pain in his knees and swelling in his lower extremities [TR 276-77]. A physical examination revealed Plaintiff was “hypertensive, ” but that his back and upper extremities were normal and his lower extremities were normal with mild swelling [TR 277]. Plaintiff was diagnosed with “polyarthralgia” and pain “without a known cause, ” with instructions to follow up with a primary care physician [TR 278, 280].
From May 4, 2017, through March 9, 2018, Plaintiff saw Dr. Rani Anbarasu as his primary care physician [TR 328, 344]. Dr. Anbarasu's examination revealed evidence of degenerative joint disease in Plaintiff's extremities [TR 345]. Plaintiff's joints exhibited “swelling and deformity with age related changes present” and Plaintiff-who wore a knee brace-had “limited [range of motion] of left knee” [TR 345]. Laboratory testing revealed rheumatoid arthritis [TR 347]. On May 10, 2017, Plaintiff returned to Dr. Anbarasu for a follow-up appointment. Dr. Anbarasu's examination revealed no changes to Plaintiff's extremities, but he exhibited degenerative joint disease and had joint swelling and deformity [TR 342-43]. Dr. Anbarasu diagnosed Plaintiff with “[r]heumatoid arthritis involving right wrist with positive rheumatoid factor” [TR 342]. On May 31, 2017, Dr. Anbarasu's reported these conditions were still present: “degenerative joint disease evident” and “joint swelling and deformity with age related changes present, limited [range of motion] of left knee” [TR 339]. Dr. Anbarasu added two diagnoses: essential hypertension and arthralgia, unspecified joint [TR 339]. On August 2, 2017, Plaintiff reported his “[j]oint pains [were] slowly getting worse and that he [was] unable to work” [TR 334]. Dr. Anbarasu made no changes to plaintiff's diagnoses [TR 334-35]. Based on this physical examination and the lab results, which revealed a positive rheumatoid factor, Dr. Anbarasu reaffirmed Plaintiff's diagnoses: rheumatoid arthritis involving right wrist with positive rheumatoid factor, unspecified joint arthralgia, and essential hypertension [TR 332]. Plaintiff last saw Dr. Anbarasu on March 9, 2018. Plaintiff told Dr. Anbarasu that he has “increased pain in his joints” and is “currently, unable to work” [TR 328]. Dr. Anbarasu's objective findings, however, were unchanged from Plaintiff's previous examinations. On March 9, 2018, Dr. Anbarasu assessed rheumatoid arthritis in multiple sites and the right wrist with positive rheumatoid factor [TR 329]. These findings are consistent with Plaintiff's examinations and labs from previous visits, including the August 30, 2017 visit [TR 288-89, 331-32, 361], which showed positive rheumatoid factor including the right wrist. Plaintiff stopped seeing Dr. Anbarasu in March of 2018 “due to financial issues, ” and he has not engaged any other treatment providers [TR 260].
On October 10, 2017, Dr. Anbarasu completed two Residual Functional Capacity Questionnaires (“RFC”) [TR 316-26]. Therein, Dr. Anbarasu indicated that Plaintiff could lift/carry up to ten pounds “frequently, ” eleven to twenty pounds “occasionally, ” twenty-one to fifty pounds “rarely, ” and fifty-one or more pounds “never” [TR 320]. Moreover, Dr. Anbarasu indicated that Plaintiff could never twist, stoop or bend crouch, and climb ladders or stairs [TR 320]. Additionally, Dr. Anbarasu determined that Plaintiff's hands, fingers, and arms have limited functionality: during an eight-hour workday, Plaintiff could use his hands to grasp, turn, or twist objects 10% of the time; Plaintiff could use his fingers for fine manipulative tasks 20% of the time; and Plaintiff could raise his arms 10% of the time [TR 321]. Dr. Anbarasu indicated that Plaintiff can sit for no more than thirty minutes at a time and stand for no more than five minutes at a time [TR 319]. Accordingly, Dr. Anbarasu indicated that Plaintiff would need to “lie down” for an unscheduled twenty-minute break every thirty to forty-five minutes [TR 320]. Dr. Anbarasu attested Plaintiff is likely to produce good and bad days [TR 321]. Consequently, Dr. Anbarasu determined that Plaintiff is “incapable of even ‘low stress' jobs” and that his impairments are “reasonably consistent with the symptoms and functional limitations” Dr. Anbarasu...
To continue reading
Request your trial