Myricks v. Saul

• Decision Date: 05 January 2021
• Docket Number: Case No. 19-23978-GAYLES/OTAZO-REYES
• Parties: ERRIC S. MYRICKS, Pro se Plaintiff, v. ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida

ERRIC S. MYRICKS, Pro se Plaintiff, v. ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

Case No. 19-23978-GAYLES/OTAZO-REYES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

January 5, 2021

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon pro se Plaintiff Erric S. Myricks' ("Plaintiff" or "Claimant") Motion for Summary Judgment (hereafter, "Claimant's Motion for Summary Judgment") [D.E. 14] and Defendant Andrew Saul, Commissioner of Social Security's ("Commissioner") Motion for Summary Judgment (hereafter, "Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment") [D.E. 16]. The administrative transcript (hereafter, "TR.") has been filed [D.E. 13].¹ For the reasons stated below, the undersigned respectfully recommends that Claimant's Motion for Summary Judgment be DENIED, the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment be GRANTED, and the Commissioner's decision be AFFIRMED.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In August 2016, Claimant filed applications for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits ("DIB") and supplemental security income ("SSI"), alleging a disability onset date of May 16, 2016. TR. 299-313. The applications were denied initially and upon reconsideration. Id. at 90-119, 124-55. Pursuant to a written request, a hearing was held onAugust 8, 2018 before Administrative Law Judge Rebecca Wolfe ("ALJ Wolfe") at which Claimant and Vocational Expert Heidi Caplan Feder ("VE Feder") testified. Id. at 36-87. On December 6, 2018, ALJ Wolfe issued an Unfavorable Decision, finding that:

(1) Claimant met the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act through December 31, 2019. Id. at 21.

(2) Claimant had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since May 16, 2016, the alleged onset date (20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1571 et seq. and 416.971 et seq.). Id.

(3) Claimant had the following severe impairments: degenerative disc disease, neuropathy, hypertension, and obesity (20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c) and 416.920(c)). Id.

(4) Claimant did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled 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). Id. at 22.²

(5) Claimant had the residual functional capacity ("RFC") to perform sedentary work subject to additional limitations. Id. at 22-23.³

(6) Claimant was unable to perform any past relevant work (20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1565 and 416.965). Id. at 26.⁴

(7) Claimant was born on September 8, 1969 and was 46 years old, which was defined as a younger individual age 45-49, on the alleged disability onset date (20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1563 and 416.963). Id. at 27.

(8) Claimant had at least a high school education and was able to communicate in English (20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1564 and 416.964). Id.

(9) Transferability of job skills was not material to the determination of disability because using the Medical-Vocational Rules as a framework supported a finding that Claimant was "not disabled," whether or not Claimant had transferable job skills (See SSR 82-41 and 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2). Id.⁵

(10) Considering Claimant's age, education, work experience, and RFC, there were jobs that existed in significant numbers in the national economy that Claimant could perform (20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1569, 404.1569a, 416.969 and 416.969a). Id.

(11) Claimant had not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, from May 16, 2016, through the date of the Unfavorable Decision (20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g) and 416.920(g)). Id. at 28.

On July 27, 2019, the Appeals Council denied a request for review of ALJ Wolfe's Unfavorable Decision. Id. at 1-6. On September 25, 2019, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), Claimant filed this action seeking reversal of ALJ Wolfe's final administrative decision [D.E. 1].

In support of his contention that ALJ Wolfe's Unfavorable Decision should be reversed, Claimant argues that:

I. The ALJ committed reversible error by improperly considering the medical opinion testimony.

II. The ALJ committed reversible error by discrediting Claimant.

III. The ALJ committed reversible error by failing to consider Claimant's mental impairments and obesity as medically determinable severe impairments.

See Claimant's Motion for Summary Judgment [D.E. 14 at 3-7].

RELEVANT MEDICAL EVIDENCE

I. Treating Sources

A. Anne Bates Leach Eye Hospital - Bascom Palmer Eye Institute ("Bascom Palmer")

On February 7, 2014, Claimant visited Bascom Palmer complaining of decreased vision. TR. 443. It was noted that Claimant's visual acuity without correction was 20/200 in both eyes and his best corrected visual acuity was 20/20 in both eyes. Id. at 443-44.

B. America's Best

On March 21, 2016, it was noted that Claimant's best corrected visual acuity was 20/20 in both eyes. Id. at 532.

C. South Georgia Medical Center ("SGMC")

On December 5, 2015, Claimant presented to SGMC's emergency room complaining of back pain. Id. at 503. On physical examination, it was noted that Claimant displayed a full range of motion in all extremities with no tenderness. Id. at 506. It was also noted that: Claimant had a body mass index of 36.6; he had no muscular weakness; his gait/ambulation was normal; and he walked without difficulty. Id. at 504. Imaging studies of Claimant's cervical spine revealed degenerative narrowing of the disc spaces but no evidence of acute cervical fracture; and imaging studies of Claimant's lumbar spine revealed no evidence of acute fracture, normal alignment and position of the lumbar vertebrae, no sign of disc herniation or spinal stenosis, and no evidence of significant foraminal compromise. Id. at 507.

D. Camillus Health Concern, Inc. ("Camillus Health")

On September 27, 2016, Claimant was seen by Jim Torres, M.D. ("Dr. Torres") at Camillus Health. Id. at 582. Claimant reported: chronic back pain; no neurological symptoms; no feelings of hopelessness, feeling down, or depressed; and no difficulty with activities of daily living. Id. at582-84. Dr. Torres assessed Claimant as suffering from visual impairment in both eyes, hypertension, cervical spondylosis with myelopathy, and peripheral neuropathy, and showing no significant symptoms of depression. Id. at 584-85. Dr. Torres prescribed for Claimant an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor, a narcotic, and a muscle relaxant. Id. at 585. Dr. Torres also recommended that Claimant exercise regularly, lose weight, and maintain a healthy diet. Id. at 586.

E. Jackson Health System ("JHS") and associated medical facilities

On September 23, 2016, Claimant underwent magnetic resonance imagining ("MRI") of his cervical spine, which revealed: a bulging disc and left lateral protrusion at C3-C4; a bulging disc at C4-C5; and bilateral multilevel foraminal stenosis. Id. at 575.

On September 2, 2016, Claimant complained of worsening pain and numbness radiating down his right arm/hand. Id. at 540. Claimant also reported that he had not been taking medication for his hypertension for many months. Id. at 541. Claimant was instructed to undergo an MRI of his cervical spine, prescribed a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, nerve pain medication, and a calcium channel blocker, and told to return in two months. Id. at 541-42.

On December 19, 2016, Claimant returned for his scheduled follow-up visit. Id. at 651. On physical examination, it was noted that: in his right upper extremity, Claimant had 4/5 strength in his proximal muscles and 3/5 strength distally; there was decreased sensation of fine touch over his lateral hand and the lateral aspect of his arm; he had significant atrophy over his right shoulder muscles; and he had 5/5 strength in his left side. Id. at 652. Claimant was referred to a neurosurgeon. Id. at 652-53.

On January 4, 2017, Claimant presented to the emergency room complaining of neck pain. Id. at 655. On physical examination, it was noted that: Claimant had normal range of motion; hehad 4/5 strength in his left upper extremity; and he had diminished sensation in his left lower extremity. Id. at 656. Claimant was given a narcotic for his pain and an antiemetic. Id. Claimant also underwent: an MRI of his cervical spine, which revealed multilevel degenerative changes with mild spinal canal stenosis and severe neural foraminal narrowing; and an MRI of his lumbar spine, which revealed mild lumbar spondylosis. Id. at 661-62.

On February 21, 2017, Claimant presented to the emergency room complaining of neck pain. Id. at 726. Claimant reported that the medications given to him during his prior visit had been helpful. Id. On physical examination, it was noted that: Claimant had normal strength and no swelling; he had no neurological deficits or weakness; and he had normal motor function. Id. at 727-28.

On March 6, 2017, Claimant underwent imaging studies of his cervical spine, which revealed: degenerative changes; evidence of nonunion at C6-C7; and a slightly displaced screw at C7 from a prior anterior cervical discectomy and fusion at C5-C7. Id. at 733-34.

Pursuant to Dr. Torres' referral for his cervical spondylosis with myelopathy diagnosis, Claimant underwent physical therapy from March 8, 2017 to April 5, 2017. Id. at 735-66. At Claimant's final physical therapy session on April 5, 2017, it was noted that Claimant was able to perform all requested therapeutic exercises with good technique and that he had at least 75% range of motion through mobility. Id. at 764-65. Claimant reported that his pain at that time was a 4.5, that physical therapy had helped him, and that he hoped additional physical therapy would be prescribed. Id. at 765.

On April 4, 2017, Claimant attended a follow-up visit for his neck pain. Id. at 772. Claimant reported that the narcotic he had been previously given had alleviated his pain and that his physical therapy sessions had improved his mobility. Id. at 772-73. On physical examination,it was noted that: Claimant had no edema in his left extremity; as to his right upper...