Myers v. Saul
| Decision Date | 03 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | SA-20-CV-00445-XR |
| Parties | ALISA MYERS, Plaintiff v. ANDREW M. SAUL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY; Defendant |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas |
On this date, the Court considered United States Magistrate Judge Richard B. Farrer's Report and Recommendation regarding the above numbered and styled case, filed July 16, 2021 (ECF No. 18) and Plaintiff Alisa Myers's objections, filed on July 29, 2021 (ECF No. 19). After careful review, the Court ACCEPTS Magistrate Judge Farrer's recommendation to affirm.
This case involves Plaintiff's request for review of the administrative denial of her application for disability benefits under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C §§ 405(g), 421(d). This Court has jurisdiction to review a final decision of the Social Security Administration. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Myers fully exhausted her administrative remedies prior to filing this action in federal court. She filed her application for disability insurance benefits in early January 2018, alleging a disability onset date of July 1, 2017. See ECF No 12-5, Tr162. Myers has a bachelor's degree and past relevant work experience as a cashier and an advertising clerk, which are considered either light or sedentary semi-skilled occupations. See Id. at 64.
Myers alleged that the following impairments render her disabled multiple sclerosis; migraines; fatigue; insomnia; chronic pain; vision problems; bowel/bladder problems; numbness in hands and feet; dizziness; and hearing loss. ECF No. 12-6 Tr194. Her claim was initially denied on April 18, 2018, ECF No. 12-3, Tr69-79; ECF No. 12-4, Tr96-99, and once again on September 20, 2018, after she requested reconsideration. ECF No. 12-3, Tr80-92; ECF No. 12-4, Tr. at 101-03. Myers then requested and received an administrative hearing. ECF No. 12-4, Tr106-08; ECF No. 12-2, Tr27-68. Myers attended the hearing on May 20, 2019, unrepresented, notwithstanding the ALJ's assurance that he would continue the hearing to permit Myers an opportunity to secure counsel should she desire. ECF No. 12-2, Tr29.
The ALJ denied Myers's claim for benefits. Id. at 11-21. In reaching that conclusion, the ALJ first found that Myers met the insured-status requirements of the Act and then applied the five-step sequential analysis required by the regulations. At step one, the ALJ found Myers had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset date of July 1, 2017. Id. at 13. At step two, the ALJ found Myers had the following severe impairments: multiple sclerosis, cervical degenerative disc disease, obesity, migraine headaches, vertigo, depression, and anxiety. See Id. The ALJ noted that Myers has a history of insomnia and vision problems but did not find them severe; he “considered any potential effects of these impairments in determining the residual functional capacity.” Id. The ALJ also noted that Myers “alleges bowel and bladder problems and hearing loss, but no acceptable medical source has noted any objective evidence in support of these allegations, ” such that the ALJ found these conditions “not to be medically determinable impairments.” Id. at 14. Finally, the ALJ concluded that Myers's allegations of fatigue, chronic pain, and numbness in her hands and feet were symptoms rather than medically determinable impairments, but he considered them to the extent they were related to medically determinable impairments. See id.
At step three, the ALJ found that Myers's impairments did not meet or medically equal one of the listed impairments in the applicable Social Security regulations. Id. at 14-16. The ALJ expressly considered listing 1.04 (disorders of the spine), 2.07 (disturbance of labyrinthine-vestibular function), 11.09 (multiple sclerosis), 12.04 (depressive, bipolar and related disorders), and 12.06 (anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorders). Id. at 14. The ALJ considered Myers's cervical degenerative disc disease, vertigo, multiple sclerosis, headaches, obesity, and mental impairments and concluded that they did not either singly or in combination meet or equal a listing. Before reaching step four, the ALJ found Myers had the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform sedentary work as defined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(a), except that Myers was further limited to “the occasional climbing of ramps and stairs, no climbing of ladders, ropes or scaffolds, no balancing, occasional stooping, kneeling, crouching and crawling” and “limited to simple, routine and repetitive tasks, that is, unskilled (no more than SVP 2) work” and “limited to superficial interaction with the public and with coworkers.” Id. at 17.
In reaching this RFC, the ALJ found unpersuasive the written statement of Dr. Ann D. Bass-Myers' treating rheumatologist-stating that Myers is “medically considered totally physically disabled and unable to work at this point.” Id. at 19 (citing Tr. at 530; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520b(c)(3)). The ALJ's justification for rejecting Dr. Bass's statement was that the determinations whether a claimant is disabled and unable to work are legal issues reserved to the Commissioner. Id. The ALJ further found the less restrictive RFC opinions of the state agency medical consultants unpersuasive. Id. Specifically, the ALJ determined that a light work capability RFC assessment was “inconsistent with the evidence of [Myers's] ongoing diffuse pain, migraines and vertigo.” Id. The ALJ further found the opinion that Myers was not subject to any severe mental impairments “[in]consistent with [Myers's] neurological examinations of May 2017, during which she displayed inconsistent attention and nervousness” and also “inconsistent with [Myers's] need for Adderall to address a deficit in attention and concentration.” Id.
At step four, after considering Myers's RFC and the testimony of the vocational expert (“VE”), the ALJ determined that Myers could not perform her past relevant work. Id. at 19. At step five, considering the VE's testimony, the ALJ determined that Myers could perform the following jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy: addresser, cutter pacer, and final assembler-all sedentary unskilled (SVP2) occupations. Id. at 20. Accordingly, the ALJ determined that Myers was not disabled through the date of last insured, and therefore was not entitled to benefits. Id. at 21.
Myers requested review of the ALJ's finding, which the Appeals Council denied. Id. at 1-7. Accordingly, on April 8, 2020, Myers sought judicial review of the administrative determination. ECF. No. 1. On July 16, 2021, Magistrate Judge Farrer tendered his Report and Recommendation, recommending that the Commissioner's decision be affirmed. ECF No. 18. Plaintiff timely filed her objections on July 29, 2021. ECF No. 19.
Where the report and recommendation has been objected to, the Court reviews the Magistrate Judge's recommended disposition de novo pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In reviewing the Commissioner's decision denying disability benefits, the reviewing court is limited to determining whether substantial evidence supports the decision and whether the Commissioner applied the proper legal standards in evaluating the evidence. Martinez v. Chater, 64 F.3d 172, 173 (5th Cir. 1995); 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3). “Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla, less than a preponderance, and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Villa v. Sullivan, 895 F.2d 1019, 1021-22 (5th Cir. 1990) (quoting Hames v. Heckler, 707 F.2d 162, 164 (5th Cir. 1983)). Substantial evidence “must do more than create a suspicion of the existence of the fact to be established, but ‘no substantial evidence' will be found only where there is a ‘conspicuous absence of credible choices' or ‘no contrary medical evidence.'” Abshire v. Bowen, 848 F.2d 638, 640 (5th Cir. 1988) (quoting Hames, 707 F.2d at 164).
If the Commissioner's findings are supported by substantial evidence, then they are conclusive and must be affirmed. Martinez, 64 F.3d at 173. In reviewing the Commissioner's findings, a court must carefully examine the entire record, but refrain from reweighing the evidence or substituting its judgment for that of the Commissioner. Ripley v. Chater, 67 F.3d 552, 555 (5th Cir. 1995); see also Villa, 895 F.2d at 1021 (). Conflicts in the evidence and credibility assessments are for the Commissioner and not for the courts to resolve. Martinez, 64 F.3d at 174.
Every individual who is insured for disability benefits, has not reached retirement age, has filed an application for benefits, and is under a disability, is eligible to receive disability insurance benefits. 42 U.S.C. § 423(a)(1). The Act defines “disability” as the “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). A “physical or mental impairment” is an impairment that results from anatomical, physiological or psychological abnormalities which are demonstrable by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(3). An individual shall be determined to be under a disability only if her physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that she is not only unable to do her...
To continue reading
Request your trial