Quattlebaum v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

• Decision Date: 13 September 2011
• Docket Number: Case No. 1:10cv399.
• Citation: 850 F.Supp.2d 763
• Parties: Claritte QUATTLEBAUM, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio

850 F.Supp.2d 763

Claritte QUATTLEBAUM, Plaintiff,

v.COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

Case No. 1:10cv399.

United States District Court,

S.D. Ohio,

Western Division.

Sept. 13, 2011.

Hugh Francis Daly, III, Legal Aid Society of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, for Plaintiff.

Adriana M. De La Torre, Office of the Chief General Counsel for SSA, Jared C. Jodrey, Kim Soo Nagle, Social Security Administration, Office of General Counsel, Chicago, IL, John J. Stark, US Attorney Office, Columbus, OH, for Defendant.

ORDER

MICHAEL R. BARRETT, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) filed by the Magistrate Judge on August 15, 2011. (Doc. 18.)

Proper notice has been given to the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), including notice that the parties would waive further appeal if they failed to file objections to the R & R in a timely manner. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir.1981). No objections to the Magistrate Judge's R & R have been filed.

Having reviewed this matter de novo pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, this Court finds the Magistrate Judge's R & R to be correct. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the August 15, 2011 R & R of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 18) is hereby ADOPTED:

1. This case be REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); and

2. This matter shall be ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

KAREN L. LITKOVITZ, United States Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (Commissioner) terminating plaintiff's Social Security benefits. This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's Statement of Errors (Doc. 7), the Commissioner's response in opposition (Doc. 14), and plaintiff's reply memorandum. (Doc. 17).

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff was born in 1972. Plaintiff has a ninth or tenth grade “limited” education and no past relevant work experience, but she has worked as a dishwasher and temporary laborer, although her prior work has not been established as substantial gainful activity. (Tr. 23, 74, 79–106). Plaintiff filed a Supplemental Security Income (SSI) application on February 15, 1994, alleging disability due to mental problems. (Tr. 42–45, 70). Plaintiff's application was granted with an onset date of February 1, 1994, on the basis that she met Listing 12.05 for mental retardation and affective disorders. See Tr. 46. The Commissioner conducted a continuing disability review and based on that review, the Commissioner determined that plaintiff's previous favorable determination had been obtained by fraud or similar fault. (Tr. 47–50). Plaintiff's benefit cessation claim was denied initially and upon reconsideration. (Tr. 52–61). Plaintiff then requested and was granted a de novo hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ). On May 16, 2007 and June 13, 2008, plaintiff, who was represented by counsel, appeared and testified at two hearings before ALJ Ronald T. Jordan. (Tr. 459–492, 493–511). Rhonda Benson, plaintiff's mental health case manager, also testified at the May 16, 2007 hearing. (Tr. 481–92). An impartial medical expert, Georgiann Pitcher, Ph.D., and an impartial vocational expert (VE) also appeared and testified at the June 13, 2008, hearing. (Tr. 498–510).

On August 19, 2008, the ALJ issued a decision determining that plaintiff's benefits were properly terminated and that she was not entitled to benefits based on her February 1994 SSI application. (Tr. 13–29). The ALJ determined that plaintiff suffers from the severe impairments of tendonitis, degenerative disc disease, obesity, carpal tunnel syndrome, a schizoaffective disorder, dysthymia, depression, anxiety, and a personality disorder. (Tr. 15). The ALJ next determined that plaintiff does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or equals the requirements of any impairment set forth in the Listing of Impairments, 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. (Tr. 16). The ALJ determined that plaintiff retains the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform a range of light work defined as follows: lifting, carrying, pushing and pulling twenty pounds occasionally and ten pounds frequently; sitting and standing six hours during an eight-hour workday; sitting six hours during an eight-hour workday; occasionally climbing ramps and stairs, balancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching and crawling; no climbing ladders, ropes or scaffolds; avoid hazards such as unprotected heights and unguarded moving machinery; the work must consist of simple and repetitive tasks; no strict or unusually high production quotas; and the work must be performed in a stable, predictable work environment with very few changes from day-to-day. (Tr. 18). The ALJ found that plaintiff's medically determinable impairments could not reasonably be expected to produce her alleged symptoms, and that plaintiff's statements concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of those symptoms are not credible. (Tr. 19). Based on the VE's testimony, the ALJ determined that there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that plaintiff could perform given her age, education, work experience, and RFC. (Tr. 28). Consequently, the ALJ concluded that plaintiff has not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, since February 1, 1994. (Tr. 29).

Plaintiff's request for review by the Appeals Council was denied (Tr. 4–6), making the decision of the ALJ the final administrative decision of the Commissioner.

APPLICABLE LAW

The following principles of law control resolution of the issues raised in this case.

Judicial review of the Commissioner's determination is limited in scope by 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Court's sole function is to determine whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence to support the Commissioner's decision. The Commissioner's findings stand if they are supported by “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971) (citing Consolidated Edison Co. v. N.L.R.B., 305 U.S. 197, 229, 59 S.Ct. 206, 83 L.Ed. 126 (1938)). In deciding whether the Commissioner's findings are supported by substantial evidence, the Court must consider the record as a whole. Hephner v. Mathews, 574 F.2d 359 (6th Cir.1978).

To qualify for SSI, plaintiff must file an application and be an “eligible individual” as defined in the Social Security Act. 42 U.S.C. § 1382(a); 20 C.F.R. § 416.202. Eligibility is dependent upon disability, income, and other financial resources. 20 C.F.R. § 416.202. To establish disability, plaintiff must demonstrate a medically determinable physical or mental impairment that can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than twelve months. Plaintiff must also show that the impairment precludes him from performing the work he previously performed or any other kind of substantial gainful employment that exists in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. § 416.905.

Regulations promulgated by the Commissioner establish a sequential evaluation process for disability determinations. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. First, the Commissioner determines whether the individual is currently engaging in substantial gainful activity; if so, a finding of nondisability is made and the inquiry ends. Second, if the individual is not currently engaged in substantial gainful activity, the Commissioner must determine whether the individual has a severe impairment or combination of impairments; if not, then a finding of nondisability is made and the inquiry ends. Third, if the individual has a severe impairment, the Commissioner must compare it to those in the Listing of Impairments, 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (the “Listings”). If the impairment meets or equals any within the Listings, disability is presumed and benefits are awarded. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d). Fourth, if the individual's impairments do not meet or equal those in the Listings, the Commissioner must determine whether the impairments prevent the performance of the individual's regular previous employment. If the individual is unable to perform the relevant past work, then a prima facie case of disability is established and the burden of going forward with the evidence shifts to the Commissioner to show that there is work in the national economy which the individual can perform. Lashley v. Secretary of H.H.S., 708 F.2d 1048 (6th Cir.1983); Kirk v. Secretary of H.H.S., 667 F.2d 524 (6th Cir.1981).

The Commissioner is required to consider plaintiff's impairments in light of the Listings. The Listings set forth certain impairments which are presumed to be of sufficient severity to prevent the performance of work. 20 C.F.R. § 416.925(a). If plaintiff suffers from an impairment which meets or equals one set forth in the Listings, the Commissioner renders a finding of disability without consideration of plaintiff's age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d); Kirk v. Secretary of H.H.S., 667 F.2d 524, 528 (6th Cir.1981).

Plaintiff has the burden of proof at the first four steps of the sequential evaluation process. Wilson v. Commissioner of Social Security, 378 F.3d 541, 548 (6th Cir.2004). Once plaintiff establishes a prima facie case by showing an inability to perform the relevant previous employment, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show that plaintiff can perform other substantial gainful employment and that such employment exists in the national economy. Harmon v. Apfel, 168 F.3d 289, 291 (6th Cir.1999); Born v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., 923 F.2d 1168, 1173 (6th Cir.1990). To rebut a prima facie case, the Commissioner must come forward with particularized proof of plaintiff's individual capacity to perform alternate...