Perry v. Astrue
| Decision Date | 20 October 2011 |
| Docket Number | Case No.: 3:10-cv-01248 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia |
| Parties | RODNEY PERRY, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant. |
This is an action seeking review of the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (hereinafter the "Commissioner") denying Claimant's application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits ("DIB") and supplemental security income ("SSI") under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-433, 1381-1383f.1 (Docket No. 2). The case is presently pending before the Court on the parties' cross motions for judgment on the pleadings as articulated in their briefs. (Docket Nos. 12 and 13). Both parties have consented in writing to a decision by the United States Magistrate Judge. (Docket Nos. 7 and 8).
The Court has fully considered the evidence and the arguments of counsel. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that the decision of the Commissioner is supported by substantial evidence and should be affirmed.
On May 1, 2007, Plaintiff, Rodney Perry (hereinafter "Claimant") filed the present Title II application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits and a Title XVI application for supplemental security income (hereinafter "SSI").2 (Tr. at 95-106). Both applications alleged a disability onset date of September 21, 1998. The Social Security Administration (hereinafter "SSA") denied both claims on June 15, 2007, and, upon reconsideration, on August 7, 2007. (Tr. at 54-63). Claimant filed a written request for an administrative hearing on August 14, 2007. (Tr. at 67-68). Claimant's request was granted and a hearing by video conference was held on November 14, 2007. (Tr. at 18-40). The Honorable Harry C. Taylor, II, Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter "ALJ) presided over the hearing from Charleston, West Virginia. Claimant, with counsel, appeared at the hearing by video from Huntington, West Virginia. The ALJ denied Claimant's claims by notice and opinion dated February 7, 2008. (Tr. at 5-17). On February 27, 2008, Claimant petitioned the Appeals Council for a review of the ALJ's decision. (Tr. at 4). The ALJ's decision became the final decision of the Commissioner on August 28, 2010 when the Appeals Council denied Claimant's petition. (Tr. at 1-3). Claimant timely filed the present civil action seeking judicial review of the administrative decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §405(g). (Docket No. 2). The Commissioner filed an Answer and a Transcript of the Administrative Proceedings, and both parties filed their Briefs in Support of Judgment on the Pleadings. (Docket Nos. 9-12). Consequently, the matter is ripe for resolution.
Under 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5), a claimant seeking disability benefits has the burden of proving a disability. See Blalock v. Richardson, 483 F.2d 773, 774 (4th Cir. 1972). A disability is defined as the "inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable impairment which can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months." 42 U.S.C. 423(d)(1)(A).
The Social Security Regulations establish a five step sequential evaluation process for the adjudication of disability claims. If an individual is found "not disabled" at any step of the process, further inquiry is unnecessary and benefits are denied. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. The first step in the sequence is determining whether a claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful employment. Id. §§ 404.1520(b), 416.920(b). If the claimant is not, then the second step requires a determination of whether the claimant suffers from a severe impairment. Id. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). If severe impairment is present, the third inquiry is whether this impairment meets or equals any of the impairments listed in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of the Administrative Regulations No. 4. Id. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d). If the impairment does, then the claimant is found disabled and awarded benefits.
However, if the impairment does not, the adjudicator must determine the claimant's residual functional capacity ("RFC"), which is the measure of the claimant's ability to engage in substantial gainful activity despite the limitations of his or her impairments. Id. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e). After making this determination, the next step is to ascertain whether the claimant's impairments prevent the performance of past relevant work. Id. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f). If the impairments do prevent the performance of past relevant work, then the claimant has established a prima facie caseof disability, and the burden shifts to the Commissioner to prove, as the final step in the process, that the claimant is able to perform other forms of substantial gainful activity, when considering the claimant's remaining physical and mental capacities, age, education, and prior work experiences. Id. §§ 404.1520(g), 416.920(g); see also McLain v. Schweiker, 715 F.2d 866, 868-69 (4th Cir. 1983). The Commissioner must establish two things: (1) that the claimant, considering his or her age, education, skills, work experience, and physical shortcomings has the capacity to perform an alternative job, and (2) that this specific job exists in significant numbers in the national economy. McLamore v. Weinberger, 538 F.2d. 572, 574 (4th Cir. 1976).
When a claimant alleges a mental impairment, the Social Security Administration ("SSA") "must follow a special technique at every level in the administrative review." 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520a, 416.920a. First, the SSA evaluates the claimant's pertinent signs, symptoms, and laboratory results to determine whether the claimant has a medically determinable mental impairment. If such impairment exists, the SSA documents its findings. Second, the SSA rates and documents the degree of functional limitation resulting from the impairment according to criteria specified in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520a(c), 416.920a(c). Third, after rating the degree of functional limitation from the claimant's impairment(s), the SSA determines the severity of the limitation. A rating of "none" or "mild" in the first three functional areas (activities of daily living, social functioning, and concentration, persistence or pace) and "none" in the fourth (episodes of decompensation) will result in a finding that the impairment is not severe unless the evidence indicates that there is more than minimal limitation in the claimant's ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520a(d)(1), 416.920a(d)(1). Fourth, if the claimant's impairment is deemed severe, the SSA compares the medical findings aboutthe severe impairment and the rating and degree and functional limitation to the criteria of the appropriate listed mental disorder to determine if the severe impairment meets or is equal to a listed mental disorder. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a(d)(2), 416.920a(d)(2). Finally, if the SSA finds that the claimant has a severe mental impairment, which neither meets nor equals a listed mental disorder, the SSA assesses the claimant's residual function. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520a(d)(3), 416.920a(d)(3). The Regulation further specifies how the findings and conclusion reached in applying the technique must be documented at the ALJ and Appeals Council levels as follows:
The decision must show the significant history, including examination and laboratory findings, the functional limitations that were considered in reaching a conclusion about the severity of the mental impairment(s). The decision must include a specific finding as to the degree of limitation in each functional areas described in paragraph (c) of this section.
20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520a(e)(2), 416.920a(e)(2).
Here, the ALJ determined at the first step of the sequential evaluation that Claimant had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since September 21, 1998, the alleged disability onset date. (Tr. at 10, Finding No. 2). The ALJ acknowledged that Claimant had worked since the alleged onset date, but found that Claimant's efforts at work activity were short-lived and, therefore, constituted unsuccessful work attempts. (Id.). Turning to the second step of the evaluation, the ALJ determined that Claimant had the following severe impairments: degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, obesity and sensorineural hearing loss (20 CFR 404.1520 (c)). (Tr. at 11, Finding No. 3). The ALJ further concluded that Claimant's peritonsillar abscess,3 fractured thumb, history of kidney stones, and history of leg burns were nonsevere impairments. (Id.). Under the third inquiry, the ALJ determined that Claimant did not have an impairmentor combination of impairments that met or medically equaled any of the impairments detailed in the Listing. (Tr. at 12, Finding No. 4). Accordingly, the ALJ assessed Claimant's RFC, finding that Claimant had the residual functional capacity to perform sedentary work with certain postural and environmental limitations. (Tr. at 12-13, Finding No. 5). The ALJ described Claimant's limitations as follows:
The ALJ then analyzed Claimant's past work experience, age, and education in combination with his RFC to determine his ability to engage in substantial gainful activity. (Tr. at 22-24, Finding Nos. 6-10). The ALJ considered that (1) Claimant was unable to perform any past relevant work; (2) he was born in 1962, and at age 36, was defined as a younger individual age 17-44 at the time of the alleged disability onset date (20 CFR 416.963); (3) he had a limited education and could communicate in English; and (4) transferability of job skills was not an...
To continue reading
Request your trial