Rowe v. Carolyn W. Colvin Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

• Decision Date: 30 August 2017
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-204-RLB
• Parties: ANNA LYNN ROWE v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana

ANNA LYNN ROWE v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-204-RLB¹

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

August 30, 2017

RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S SOCIAL SECURITY APPEAL

Anna Lynn Rowe ("Plaintiff") seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("Commissioner") pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) denying Plaintiff's application for Disability Insurance Benefits under the Social Security Act. (R. Doc. 1). Having found all of the procedural prerequisites met (Tr. 1-6), the Court has properly reviewed Plaintiff's appeal. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); 20 C.F.R. § 404.981 ("The Appeals Council's decision, or the decision of the administrative law judge if the request for review is denied, is binding unless you... file an action in Federal district court..."). For the reasons given below, the Court ORDERS that the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED and Plaintiff's appeal is DISMISSED with prejudice.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff filed an application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income on May 31, 2013 alleging that she became disabled on April 1, 2013 because of a disabling condition, namely arthritis, diabetes, and thyroid problems. (Tr. 300). Plaintiff'sapplication was denied by an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"), who first held an administrative hearing (Tr. 87-132) before issuing an unfavorable decision on January 29, 2015. (Tr. 69-86). Plaintiff's April 1, 2015 request for review of the ALJ's decision (Tr. 50-51) was denied by the Appeals Council on February 18, 2016. (Tr. 1-7). The ALJ's decision rested as the Commissioner's final decision when the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.981.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

This Court's review of the Commissioner's decision is limited to an inquiry into whether there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the Commissioner and whether the correct legal standards were applied. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971); Falco v. Shalala, 27 F.3d 160, 162 (5th Cir. 1994); Villa v. Sullivan, 895 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1990). Substantial evidence has been defined as "'more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.'" Richardson, 402 U.S. at 401 (quoting Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y. v. N.L.R.B., 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938) (defining "substantial evidence" in the context of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 160(e)). The Fifth Circuit has further held that substantial evidence "must do more than create a suspicion of the existence of the fact to be established, but no substantial evidence will be found only where there is a conspicuous absence of credible choices or no contrary medical evidence." Hames v. Heckler, 707 F.2d 162, 164 (5th Cir. 1983) (quotations omitted). Conflicts in the evidence are for the Commissioner "and not the courts to resolve." Selders v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 614, 617 (5th Cir. 1990). The Court may not reweigh the evidence, try the case de novo, or substitute its own judgment for that of the Commissioner even if it finds that the evidence preponderates against the Commissioner's decision. See, e.g.,Bowling v. Shalala, 36 F.3d 431, 434 (5th Cir. 1994) ("This is so because substantial evidence is less than a preponderance but more than a scintilla."); Hollis v. Bowen, 837 F.2d 1378, 1383 (5th Cir. 1988) ("In applying the substantial evidence standard, we must carefully scrutinize the record to determine if, in fact, such evidence is present; at the same time, however, we may neither reweigh the evidence in the record nor substitute our judgment for the Secretary's."); Harrell v. Bowen, 862 F.2d 471, 475 (5th Cir. 1988) (same).

If the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence, then it is conclusive and must be upheld. Estate of Morris v. Shalala, 207 F.3d 744, 745 (5th Cir. 2000). If, on the other hand, the Commissioner fails to apply the correct legal standards, or fails to provide a reviewing court with a sufficient basis to determine that the correct legal principles were followed, it is grounds for reversal. Bradley v. Bowen, 809 F.2d 1054, 1057 (5th Cir. 1987).

III. ALJ'S DETERMINATION

In determining disability, the Commissioner (through an ALJ) works through a five-step sequential evaluation process. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). The burden rests upon the claimant throughout the first four steps of this five-step process to prove disability. If the claimant is successful in sustaining his or her burden at each of the first four steps, the burden shifts to the Commissioner at step five. See Muse v. Sullivan, 925 F.2d 785, 789 (5th Cir. 1991) (explaining the five-step process). First, the claimant must prove he or she is not currently engaged in substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b). Second, the claimant must prove his or her impairment is "severe" in that it "significantly limits your physical or mental ability to do basic work activities..." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). At step three, the ALJ must conclude the claimant is disabled if he or she proves that his or her impairments meet or are medically equivalent to one of the impairments contained in the Listing of Impairments. See 20C.F.R. § 404.1520(d) (step three of sequential process); 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app'x 1 (Listing of Impairments). Fourth, the claimant bears the burden of proving he or she is incapable of meeting the physical and mental demands of his or her past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f).

If the claimant is successful at all four of the preceding steps then the burden shifts to the Commissioner to prove, considering the claimant's residual functional capacity, age, education and past work experience, that he or she is capable of performing other work. 20 C.F.R § 404.1520(g)(1). If the Commissioner proves other work exists which the claimant can perform, the claimant is given the chance to prove that he or she cannot, in fact, perform that work. Muse, 925 F.2d at 789.

Here, the ALJ made the following determinations:

1. Plaintiff had met the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act through June 30, 2013

2. Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since April 1, 2008.

3. Plaintiff suffered from the following severe impairments: degenerative disc disease; rheumatoid arthritis; and obesity.

4. Plaintiff did not meet or medically equal any listed impairment.

5. Plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity to perform light work except she can never climb ladders, ropes, and scaffolds, but can occasionally perform all other postural; she must avoid concentrated exposure to extremes of heat and humidity; she must avoid concentrated exposure to heights and moving machinery.

6. Plaintiff was able to perform past relevant work as an administrative assistant, clerical worker, and housekeeper.

7. Plaintiff had not been under a disability through the date of the decision.

(Tr. 74-81).

IV. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff raises the following five assignments of error: (1) the ALJ's quotation of two separate, inconsistent RFC assessments; (2) the weight given to the opinions of two treating medical providers; (3) the ALJ's credibility determination of the claimant; (4) the weight given to certain consulting physicians regarding claimant's lupus, depression, and anxiety; and (5) the alleged failure to analyze the claims under SSR 96-8p. (R. Doc. 17 at 4).

These categorizations by Plaintiff, however, do not necessarily reflect the full substance of each argument. Therefore, in a departure from the organizational scheme employed by Plaintiff in her briefing, the Court will address the substance of each of Plaintiff's arguments within the framework of the 5-step analysis. Substantively, the Plaintiff's arguments fall into three general categories. First, Plaintiff's brief contains similar arguments in various sections that are not specific to any particular step in the process. This includes Plaintiff's arguments regarding the weight given to various medical providers throughout the ALJ's decision, the ALJ's credibility assessment of Plaintiff, and the ALJ's consideration of the testimony of a lay witness. Second, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ committed reversible errors at Step Two of the analysis. And finally, Plaintiff submits that the ALJ committed reversible errors in his RFC assessment of Plaintiff, including with regard to SSR 96-8p. Plaintiff's arguments will be addressed within this framework.

A. Weight Given to Medical Providers

At various points in her briefing, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in the weight given to certain medical providers. First, Plaintiff argues that the medical evidence of Dr. Charles Genovese (Dr. Genovese) and Nurse Practitioner Melinda Balado (NP Balado) was not properly weighed pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) in the event Plaintiff was limited to an RFC of lightwork with limitations. (R. Doc. 17 at 6). Next, Plaintiff dedicates a section of her briefing to the weight given to Dr. Genovese and NP Balado, arguing that the ALJ did not give the proper weight to the functional limitations in the reports of these providers, and did not properly examine the longitudinal relationship between Plaintiff and these providers. (R. Doc. 17 at 8-13). Plaintiff then argues that, had the opinions of Dr. Genovese and NP Balado been considered in the fashion Plaintiff suggests is proper, the testimony of Plaintiff would have been more consistent with the (properly-weighed) medical evidence, and the ALJ would not have made factually inaccurate statements with regard to the existence of a prescription for an assistive device and the absence or presence of a diagnosed radiculopathy. (R. Doc. 17 at 16). Lastly, Plaintiff argues that improper weight was given to Dr. Genovese and NP Balado on the issues of depression and...