Pryor v. Colvin

Decision Date20 March 2014
Docket NumberNo. 4:12CV862 NCC,4:12CV862 NCC
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
PartiesSTACE PRYOR, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This is an action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) for judicial review of the Commissioner's final decision denying Stace Pryor's application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401, et seq., and his application for supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381, et seq. All matters are pending before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge, with consent of the parties, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Because the final decision is not supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole, the decision of the Commissioner is reversed.

I. Procedural History

Plaintiff Stace Pryor filed his applications for disability insurance benefits (DIB) and for supplemental security income (SSI) on May 28, 2009, alleging that he became disabled on December 11, 2006, because of problems with his right shoulder, major depressive disorder with suicidal tendencies, and borderline dual personality disorder. (Tr. 97-103, 142.)2 On December 28, 2009, the Social Security Administration denied plaintiff's claims for benefits. (Tr. 45, 46, 48-52.) Upon plaintiff's request, a hearing was held before an administrative law judge (ALJ) on July 16, 2010, at which plaintiff and a vocational expert testified. Plaintiff's spouse also testified at the hearing. (Tr. 8-24.) On August 31, 2010, the ALJ issued a decision denying plaintiff's claims for benefits, finding plaintiff able to perform work in the national economy such as small products assembler, laundry bagger, and electronics worker. (Tr. 8-21.) On March 15, 2012, upon review of additional evidence, the Appeals Council denied plaintiff's request for review of the ALJ's decision. (Tr. 2-6.) The ALJ's determination thus stands as the final decision of the Commissioner. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

In the instant action for judicial review, plaintiff contends that theCommissioner's final decision is not supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Specifically, plaintiff argues that evidence before the ALJ and submitted to the Appeals Council shows that he has a condition that gives rise to spontaneous spleen ruptures and that such condition should have been considered a severe impairment in the disability determination. Plaintiff also argues that the ALJ failed to fully develop the record and therefore had an insufficient basis upon which to assess plaintiff's residual functional capacity (RFC), arguing further that the RFC assessment was not based upon medical evidence and failed to account for the effects of his severe mental impairments. Finally, plaintiff claims that the ALJ's flawed RFC assessment resulted in a faulty hypothetical question posed to the vocational expert. Plaintiff requests that the final decision be reversed and that he be found disabled.

II. Testimonial Evidence Before the ALJ
A. Plaintiff's Testimony

At the hearing on July 16, 2010, plaintiff testified in response to questions posed by the ALJ. Plaintiff was not represented by counsel at the hearing.

At the time of the hearing, plaintiff was thirty-six years of age. Plaintiff stands five feet, eight inches tall and weighs 175 pounds. Plaintiff is right-handed. Plaintiff is married and lives in a trailer with his wife and four-year-old child. Plaintiff completed the seventh grade and has his GED. Plaintiff has had novocational training. (Tr. 28-31.)

Plaintiff's Work History Report shows plaintiff to have worked as a stacker at a saw mill in April and May 2008. From October to December 2008, plaintiff worked as a deli worker at a grocery store. (Tr. 180.) Plaintiff testified that he has worked numerous jobs within the previous fifteen years—including as a dishwasher, a metal finisher, and a cook at a fast food restaurant—but that he stayed no longer than six months at any given job. (Tr. 31.)

Plaintiff testified that he cannot work because of pain in his right shoulder. Plaintiff testified that he underwent surgery but that the surgery did not resolve the pain. Plaintiff testified that the pain worsens if he moves his shoulder or engages in a lot of writing. Plaintiff testified that he last took prescription pain medication about four months prior and currently just "weather[s] it out." (Tr. 32-33.)

Plaintiff testified that his spleen spontaneously ruptured in November and again in early December. Plaintiff testified that the doctors cannot determine the cause of the ruptures. Plaintiff testified that he had an upcoming appointment regarding the condition and was planning to ask that the spleen be removed. (Tr. 33-34.)

As to his mental condition, plaintiff testified that he has felt sad and lonely since his childhood. Plaintiff also testified that he was paranoid. Plaintiff testified that such paranoia manifested in his job history in that he would think he wasgoing to be fired so he would quit. Plaintiff testified that he hears various kinds of voices, some of which tell him to kill himself. Plaintiff testified that he last attempted suicide ten years prior, after which he was hospitalized for two weeks. Plaintiff testified that he currently takes medication as prescribed by his psychiatrist to keep "the voices from aggravating [him]." Plaintiff testified that other prescribed medications do not seem to help at their present dosage. (Tr. 36-39.)

Plaintiff testified that he sleeps an hour or two at night and has difficulty sleeping because of racing thoughts. (Tr. 39.)

As to his daily activities, plaintiff testified that he walks a lot, both inside and outside, because he cannot sit still. Plaintiff testified that he might mow the lawn but must stop because of the vibration. Plaintiff testified that he has a driver's license and occasionally drives. (Tr. 30, 39-40.)

B. Testimony of Plaintiff's Spouse

Jody Pryor, plaintiff's spouse, testified in response to questions posed by the ALJ. Mrs. Pryor testified that she receives disability benefits through SSI. (Tr. 30.)

Mrs. Pryor testified that plaintiff has been prescribed Darvocet for his shoulder pain but fills the medication only when he can afford it. Mrs. Pryor testified that plaintiff's doctor told him that he could not work because of hisruptured spleen inasmuch as getting hit could kill him. (Tr. 33.)

Mrs. Pryor testified that she has known plaintiff to be depressed since they were married. (Tr. 37.) Mrs. Pryor testified that a previous employer witnessed plaintiff talking to spirits. (Tr. 40-41.)

C. Testimony of Vocational Expert

Lori McQuade, a vocational expert, testified in response to questions posed by the ALJ.

Ms. McQuade testified that plaintiff had no past relevant work that qualified as substantial gainful activity. (Tr. 43.)

The ALJ asked Ms. McQuade to assume an individual of plaintiff's age, education, and work experience, and to further assume the individual to be limited to light work "with lifting at the 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently, no repetitive pushing and pulling with the arms, and limited public contact." (Tr. 43.) In response to the ALJ's question whether such a person could perform any unskilled work, Ms. McQuade testified that the person could perform work as a small products assembler, of which 500 such jobs existed locally and 900,000 nationally; as a laundry bagger, of which 1,500 such jobs existed locally and one million nationally; and as an electronics worker, of which 500 such jobs existed locally and 800,000 nationally. (Tr. 43.)

III. Medical Evidence Before the ALJ

An MRI taken of plaintiff's right shoulder on September 22, 2006, in response to plaintiff's complaints of chronic shoulder pain and limited range of motion showed severe rotator cuff tendinopathy with partial tearing along the bursal surface of the supraspinatus tendon adjacent to the acromioclavicular joint. Mild downward sloping of the lateral aspect of the distal acromion was also noted. (Tr. 244.)

On October 6, 2006, plaintiff visited Dr. Michael Merkley of Midwest Orthopaedic Center for evaluation of the right shoulder. Plaintiff reported having injured his shoulder in 1991 and that he was experiencing increasing pain within the previous few months, causing him to be unable to lift objects. Physical examination showed no atrophy. Plaintiff had active forward elevation to 165 degrees and equivocal Neer impingement and Hawkins reinforcement signs. No tenderness about the distal clavicle was noted. Plaintiff's supraspinatus strength and external rotator strength were measured to be 4+/5. Plaintiff's load/shift was noted to be positive both posteriorly and anteriorly. X-rays showed posterior subluxation. Dr. Merkley diagnosed plaintiff with posterior subluxation of the right shoulder. Dr. Merkley suspected some secondary bursal symptoms due to the instability of the shoulder and recommended that plaintiff undergo EMG/NCV studies to determine whether underlying suprascapular neuropathy was present.Dr. Merkley opined that physical therapy may be indicated but expressed doubt that therapy would stabilize the shoulder. Plaintiff was instructed to return after EMG/NCV testing. (Tr. 241.)

EMG studies performed on October 9, 2006, showed some mild irritability but yielded essentially normal results. (Tr. 237-38.)

Plaintiff returned to Dr. Merkley on November 3, 2006, with continued complaints of painful instability of the right shoulder. Surgical repair was planned. (Tr. 229.)

On December 13, 2006, plaintiff underwent arthroscopic debridement of the anterior-superior labrum and arthroscopic capsulorraphy of the posterior-inferior capsule with closure of the rotator interval. (Tr. 226-27.)

During follow up examination on January 2, 2007, Dr. Merkley stressed to plaintiff the importance of staying in his brace for recovery....

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT