McManus v. Colvin
| Decision Date | 18 January 2017 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL NO. 3:15-cv-00123-JAJ-SBJ |
| Parties | JULIE A. MCMANUS, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa |
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 2
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY ............................................................................ 3
III. REVIEW OF ADMINSTRATIVE RECORD .................................................... 4
A. Medical Records ............................................................................ 5
B. Functional Capacity Assessment ......................................................... 13
C. Testimony of Julie A. McManus ......................................................... 15
D. Function Reports ........................................................................... 17
E. Testimony of Vocational Expert .......................................................... 19
F. Findings of Administrative Law Judge .................................................. 21
IV. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF DECISION ............................................................ 22
A. Standard of Review ........................................................................ 22
B. Analysis of McManus' Arguments ...................................................... 24
V. RECOMMENDATION ............................................................................... 44
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Julie A. McManus ("McManus") seeks judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner's decision denying her Application for Disability Insurance Benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 401 et seq., and denying her Application for Supplemental Security Income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1381 et seq. McManus was found to suffer from the severe impairments of diabetes, post anal sphincter surgery, disorders of the back, and obesity. While it was determined McManus is unable to perform any past relevant work, it was found that, considering her age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity, there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that she can perform. Consequently, the Commissioner concluded McManus was not disabled for purposes of the Act.
McManus insists she is unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity due to her medical impairments and, therefore, is disabled under the Act and entitled to benefits accordingly. She asserts three primary arguments before this Court: (1) the determination of residual functional capacity was erroneous because it failed to incorporate limitations related to prolonged sitting and the need for frequent, unscheduled bathroom breaks and absenteeism from work; (2) the assessment of the credibility of her subjective complaints related to those limitations was erroneous; and (3) the Commissioner did not sustain the burden of proving other work exists in the economy which McManus can realistically perform. McManus requests that this Court reverse the decision of the Commissioner and remand her claim for the calculation of benefits.
The case was referred to this Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) for submission of a Report and Recommendation regarding disposition (Dkt. 6). As set forth below, it is recommended that the decision of the Commissioner be affirmed.
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
McManus applied for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits on April 5, 2013 and for Supplemental Security Income Benefits on April 16, 2013, both with an alleged disability onset date of May 29, 2012. 1 The Social Security Administration denied her application for benefits initially on May 22, 2013, and upon reconsideration on June 28, 2013. (A.R. 77-118.) Based upon a timely request for a hearing, McManus' claims were heard before Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") David W. Thompson on May 14, 2014. (A.R. 45-76.) McManus was represented by counsel, and testified on her own behalf. (A.R. 50-70.) Vocational expert Alfred Walker responded to hypotheticals presented by the ALJ, and McManus' counsel. (A.R. 70-74.)
The ALJ issued a written decision denying McManus' application for benefits on July 10, 2014. (A.R. 23-44.) McManus timely requested a review of the ALJ's decision, and the Appeals Council denied review on October 19, 2015. (A.R. 1-6.) Consequently, the decision of the ALJ stands as the final decision of the Commissioner. (Id.)
McManus filed her Complaint (Dkt. 1) before this Court on November 10, 2015. She asserts the decision is in error because she "is in all respects eligible and qualified to receive benefits under the [A]ct as amended, and the final decision of the Defendant denying benefits under the Act is not based on substantial evidence and is in error." (Id. ¶ 5.) She asks this Court to reverse the decision because, inter alia, the restrictions to her capability to perform work as found by the ALJ were "nowhere near the extent of the limitations borne out by the medical record and testified to [by] McManus"; the ALJ erred by determining "she did not suffer proctalgia fugax, which is extremely painful and limiting"; the ALJ erred in his finding that McManus' "backsymptoms were not especially troublesome"; the ALJ's findings that McManus did not have a long history of treatment for or significant treatment problems relating to rectal difficulties is "completely contradicted" by the objective medical evidence; and McManus' doctor indicated her rectal difficulties "could potentially affect life activities" and "acknowledged her history of problems and treatment." (Id. ¶ 7.)
The Commissioner filed an Answer on March 9, 2016 (Dkt. 9) with a copy of the Administrative Record (Dkt. 10). The Commissioner contends McManus has not shown "good cause" to warrant reversal under the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
McManus filed a Memorandum in Support of Appeal (Dkt. 12) on May 9, 2016. The Commissioner submitted a responsive Brief (Dkt. 13) on July 6, 2016.
After reviewing the written submissions, it was determined that a hearing was not warranted. This matter is considered to be fully submitted for purposes of this Report and Recommendation.
III. REVIEW OF ADMINSTRATIVE RECORD
This Magistrate Judge has reviewed the entire Administrative Record (Dkt. 10), but summarizes only certain portions as background for the specific issues presented by the parties. In that regard, it is noteworthy that in McManus' Memorandum she focuses on her "impairments of the colon/anus" which "include recurring anal abscesses, rectal bleeding, fistulas, anal tearing, anal papillae, anal fissures, and uncontrolled diarrhea." (Dkt. 12 p. 3.) She claims to have lost her job as a school bus monitor due to those impairments which led to a "very high degree of absences" from work between 2009 and 2012. (Id. pp. 3-4; A.R. 307.) According to McManus, her "impairments limit her ability to sit or stand for prolonged periods due to rectal pain" and require her to take unscheduled bathroom breaks and be absent from work due to her symptoms and necessary medical appointments. (Id. p. 4.)
A. Medical Records
On December 10, 2010, McManus met with Dr. John Cromwell for evaluation of anal pain and a lump in her rectum. (A.R. 342.) Clinical notes indicated that McManus previously suffered from lymphocytic colitis, her last colonoscopy showed no evidence of active disease, and she had a history of multiple bouts of C. difficile, for which she was on oral medication with good control of her symptoms. (A.R. 344.) McManus reported to Dr. Cromwell that she was currently having approximately four bowel movements a day, and that she has pain with every stool. (Id.) McManus denied diarrhea, constipation or abdominal pain. (Id.) Dr. Cromwell's examination noted a posterior anal fissure that was tender to the touch, with small anal polyps. (Id.) Dr. Cromwell explained the nature of anal fissures to McManus, and directed treatment of diltiazem gel, additional daily water and fiber intake, with a follow-up in four weeks. (Id.)
On January 24, 2012, McManus underwent surgery to remove anal polyps. (A.R. 376.) Dr. James De Andrade performed the surgery under the direction of Dr. Cromwell. (Id.) McManus had reported no major changes since her previous clinic appointment, but she felt that the polyp in her anal canal had perhaps gotten larger over the last month. (Id.) Otherwise, she had no changes in her bowel patterns. (Id.) Surgical notes indicated that McManus tolerated the procedure well, and no complications were noted. (A.R. 377.)
On May 30, 2012, McManus was seen by Dr. Courtney Olmsted, with complaints of irritation from anal polyps. (A.R. 391.) Dr. Olmsted noted upon exam that McManus had a new hypertrophied anal polyp, likely due to chronic issues with irregular bowel habits. (Id.) Dr. Olmsted recommended stool softners, increased water and fiber intake. (Id.) However, because of the discomfort it has caused her, McManus indicated that she would like to undergo excision. (Id.) Dr. Olmsted, along with Dr. Cromwell, performed the excision, noting that McManus tolerated the procedure well. (A.R. 392-393.)
On August 5, 2012, McManus was seen by Dr. Olivia Bailey for complaints relating to dizziness and diarrhea. (A.R. 394-395.) McManus reported she had diarrhea for about three weeks, going up to ten times a day, and had stools with bright red blood. (Id.) Dr. Bailey took a stool sample to evaluate for C. difficile, given McManus' history....
To continue reading
Request your trial