Perea v. Berryhill
Decision Date | 30 August 2018 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 17-573 KK |
Parties | CARMEN RENEE PEREA, Plaintiff, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Social Security Administrative Record (Doc. 14) filed October 10, 2017, in support of Plaintiff Carmen Renee Perea's ("Plaintiff") Complaint (Doc. 1) seeking review of the decision of Defendant Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, ("Defendant" or "Commissioner") denying Plaintiff's claim for Title II disability insurance benefits and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. On December 22, 2017, Plaintiff filed her Motion to Remand or Reverse ("Motion"). (Doc. 21.) The Commissioner filed a Response in opposition on February 20, 2017 (Doc. 23), and Plaintiff filed a Reply on March 6, 2018. (Doc. 24.) The Court has jurisdiction to review the Commissioner's final decision under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c). Having meticulously reviewed the entire record and the applicable law and being fully advised in the premises, the Court finds the Motion is well taken and is GRANTED.
Claimant Carmen Renee Perea ("Ms. Perea") alleges that she became disabled on February 18, 2013, at the age of forty-six because of bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, migraines, left hip injury, hypothyroidism, and seasonal allergies. (Tr. 227, 231.3) Ms. Perea completed the twelfth grade in 1985, and worked as a courthouse clerk and public works customer service representative. (Tr. 232.)
On May 10, 2013, Ms. Perea protectively filed an application for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB") under Title II of the Social Security Act (the "Act"), 42 U.S.C. § 401 et seq. (Tr. 11, 227.) Ms. Perea's application was initially denied on July 23, 2013. (Tr. 69, 70-82, 101-04.) It was denied again at reconsideration on October 17, 2013. (Tr. 83-97, 98, 106-111.) On December 5, 2013, Ms. Perea requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"). (Tr. 112.) On June 26, 2014, Ms. Perea filed for Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") under Title XVI of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1381 et seq. (Tr. 199-208.) The ALJ conducted a hearing on both the Title II and Title XVI applications on November 20, 2015. (Tr. 37-68.) Ms. Perea appeared in person at the hearing with non-attorney representative John Bishop.4 (Id.) The ALJ took testimony from Ms. Perea (Tr. 41-63), and an impartial vocational expert ("VE"), Cassandra Humphries. (Tr. 63-67.) On January 29, 2016, ALJ Eric Weiss issued an unfavorable decision. (Tr. 8-21.) On March 17, 2017, the Appeals Council issued its decision denying Ms. Perea's request for review and upholding the ALJ's final decision. (Tr. 1-7.) On May 22, 2017, Ms. Perea timely filed a Complaint seeking judicial review of the Commissioner's final decision. (Doc. 1.)
An individual is considered disabled if she is unable "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) ( ); see also 42 U.S.C. § 1382(a)(3)(A) ( ). The Social Security Commissioner has adopted the familiar five-step sequential analysis to determine whether a person satisfies the statutory criteria as follows:
See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4) (disability insurance benefits); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4) ( ); Fischer-Ross v. Barnhart, 431 F.3d 729, 731 (10th Cir. 2005); Grogan v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 1257, 1261 (10th Cir. 2005). The claimant has the initial burden of establishing a disability in the first four steps of this analysis. Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146, n.5, 107 S.Ct. 2287, 2294, n. 5, 96 L.Ed.2d 119 (1987). The burden shifts to the Commissioner at step five to show that the claimant is capable of performing work in the national economy. Id. A finding that the claimant is disabled or not disabled at any point in the five-step review is conclusive and terminates the analysis. Casias v. Sec'y of Health & Human Serv., 933 F.2d 799, 801 (10th Cir. 1991).
This Court must affirm the Commissioner's denial of social security benefits unless (1) the decision is not supported by "substantial evidence" or (2) the ALJ did not apply the proper legal standards in reaching the decision. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Hamlin v. Barnhart, 365 F.3d 1208, 1214 (10th Cir. 2004); Langley v. Barnhart, 373 F.3d 1116, 1118 (10th Cir. 2004); Casias, 933 F.2d at 800-01. In making these determinations, the Court "neither reweigh[s] the evidence nor substitute[s] [its] judgment for that of the agency.'" Bowman v. Astrue, 511 F.3d1270, 1272 (10th Cir. 2008). A decision is based on substantial evidence where it is supported by "relevant evidence . . . a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Langley, 373 F.3d at 1118. A decision "is not based on substantial evidence if it is overwhelmed by other evidence in the record[,]" Langley, 373 F.3d at 1118, or "constitutes mere conclusion." Musgrave v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 1371, 1374 (10th Cir. 1992). The agency decision must "provide this court with a sufficient basis to determine that appropriate legal principles have been followed." Jensen v. Barnhart, 436 F.3d 1163, 1165 (10th Cir. 2005). Therefore, although an ALJ is not required to discuss every piece of evidence, "the record must demonstrate that the ALJ considered all of the evidence," and "the [ALJ's] reasons for finding a claimant not disabled" must be "articulated with sufficient particularity." Clifton v. Chater, 79 F.3d 1007, 1009-10 (10th Cir. 1996).
To continue reading
Request your trial