Scheffert v. Saul

Decision Date05 March 2020
Docket NumberNo. 18-CV-1031-LTS,18-CV-1031-LTS
PartiesLISA A. SCHEFFERT, Claimant, v. ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Lisa A. Scheffert ("Claimant") seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("the Commissioner") denying her application for disability insurance benefits ("DIB") under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. Sections 401-34. Claimant contends that the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") erred in determining that she was not disabled. For the reasons that follow, I recommend that the District Court affirm the Commissioner's decision.

I. BACKGROUND

I adopt the facts set forth in the Parties' Joint Statement of Facts (Doc. 12) and only summarize the pertinent facts here. This is an appeal from a denial of disability insurance benefits ("DIB"). Claimant was born September 1, 1983. (AR2 at 148.)Claimant has a BA in business administration.3 (Id. at 32.) She allegedly became disabled due to neurocardiogenic syncope.4 (Id. at 180.) Claimant's original alleged onset of disability date was July 30, 2015. (Id. at 148.) Claimant filed an application for DIB on August 4, 2015. (Id.) Claimant's last date insured is December 31, 2020. (Id. at 14.) Claimant's claim was denied originally and on reconsideration. (Id. at 81-84, 86-89.) A video hearing was held on September 27, 2017 with Claimant and her attorney, Corbett Luedeman in Dubuque, Iowa and ALJ Matthew Gordan and vocational expert ("VE") Jeff Johnson in West Des Moines, Iowa. (Id. at 29-58.) Claimant and the VE testified. (Id. at 32-57.) The ALJ issued an unfavorable decision on November 28, 2017. (Id. at 11-22.)

Claimant requested review and the Appeals Council denied review on May 29, 2018. (Id. at 1-5.) Accordingly, the ALJ's decision stands as the final administrative ruling in the matter and became the final decision of the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.1481.

On August 27, 2018, Claimant timely filed her complaint in this Court. (Doc. 4.) The case was originally assigned to Chief District Court Judge Leonard T. Strand and then-Chief Magistrate Judge C.J. Williams. On September 17, 2018, when Judge Williams was appointed as United States District Court Judge, the case was reassigned to me as Magistrate Judge. On April 17, 2019, all briefing was completed and the Honorable Leonard T. Strand referred the case to me for a Report and Recommendation.

II. DISABILITY DETERMINATIONS AND THE BURDEN OF PROOF

A disability is the "inability 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), 1382c(a)(3)(A). A claimant has a disability when, due to physical or mental impairments, the claimant

is not only unable to do [the claimant's] previous work but cannot, considering [the claimant's] age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists . . . in significant numbers either in the region where such individual lives or in several regions of the country.

42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(2)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(B). A claimant is not disabled if the claimant is able to do work that exists in the national economy but is unemployed due to an inability to find work, lack of options in the local area, technological changes in a particular industry, economic downturns, employer hiring practices, or other factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1566(c).

To determine whether a claimant has a disability within the meaning of the Social Security Act, the Commissioner follows the five-step sequential evaluation process outlined in the regulations. Dixon v. Barnhart, 353 F.3d 602, 605 (8th Cir. 2003). At steps one through four, the claimant has the burden to prove he or she is disabled; at step five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to prove there are jobs available in the national economy. Moore v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 520, 523 (8th Cir. 2009).

At step one, the ALJ will consider whether a claimant is engaged in "substantial gainful activity." Id. If so, the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(i). "Substantial activity is significant physical or mental work that is done on a full- or part-time basis. Gainful activity is simply work that is done for compensation." Dukes v.Barnhart, 436 F.3d 923, 927 (8th Cir. 2006) (citing Comstock v. Chater, 91 F.3d 1143, 1145 (8th Cir. 1996); 20 C.F.R. § 416.972(a),(b)).

If the claimant is not engaged in substantial gainful activity, at step two, the ALJ decides if the claimant's impairments are severe. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii). If the impairments are not severe, then the claimant is not disabled. Id. An impairment is not severe if it does not significantly limit a claimant's "physical or mental ability to do basic work activities." Id. § 416.920(c). The ability to do basic work activities means the ability and aptitude necessary to perform most jobs. Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 141 (1987) (quoting 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1521(b), 416.921(b)). These include

(1) physical functions such as walking, standing, sitting, lifting, pushing, pulling, reaching, carrying, or handling; (2) capacities for seeing, hearing, and speaking; (3) understanding, carrying out, and remembering simple instructions; (4) use of judgment; (5) responding appropriately to supervision, co-workers, and usual work situations; and (6) dealing with changes in a routine work setting.

Id. (quotation omitted) (numbers added; internal brackets omitted).

If the claimant has a severe impairment, at step three, the ALJ will determine the medical severity of the impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii). If the impairment meets or equals one of the impairments listed in the regulations ("the listings"), then "the claimant is presumptively disabled without regard to age, education, and work experience." Tate v. Apfel, 167 F.3d 1191, 1196 (8th Cir. 1999) (quotation omitted). If the claimant's impairment is severe, but it does not meet or equal an impairment in the listings, at step four, the ALJ will assess the claimant's residual functional capacity ("RFC") and the demands of the claimant's past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iv). RFC is what the claimant can still do despite his or her limitations. Guilliams v. Barnhart, 393 F.3d 798, 801 (8th Cir. 2005) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a), 416.945(a)). RFC is based on all relevant evidence and the claimant isresponsible for providing the evidence the Commissioner will use to determine the RFC. Eichelberger v. Barnhart, 390 F.3d 584, 591 (8th Cir. 2004). "Past relevant work" is any work the claimant performed within the fifteen years prior to his application that was substantial gainful activity and lasted long enough for the claimant to learn how to do it. 20 C.F.R. § 416.960(b)(1). If a claimant retains enough RFC to perform past relevant work, then the claimant is not disabled. Id. § 416.920(a)(4)(iv).

At step five, if the claimant's RFC will not allow the claimant to perform past relevant work, then the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show there is other work the claimant can do, given the claimant's RFC, age, education, and work experience. Id. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(v), 416.960(c)(2). The ALJ must show not only that the claimant's RFC will allow the claimant to do other work, but also that other work exists in significant numbers in the national economy. Eichelberger, 390 F.3d at 591 (citation omitted).

A. The ALJ'S Findings

The ALJ made the following findings at each step of the five-step process regarding Claimant's disability status.

At step one, the ALJ found that Claimant had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since her alleged onset of disability date. (AR at 14.)

At step two, the ALJ found that Claimant suffered from the following severe impairments: neurocardiogenic syncope, right knee degenerative joint disease, obesity, gastritis, fructose malabsorption, and generalized anxiety disorder. (Id.) The ALJ considered Claimant's mental impairments under listing 12.06 (anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorders). (Id. at 15.) The ALJ considered the limitations imposed by Claimant's obesity not only under the listings, but also when assessing her claim at other steps of the process, including when crafting Claimant's RFC. (Id. at 19.)

At step three, the ALJ found that Claimant did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or equaled a presumptively disabling impairment listed in the regulations, either when considered singly or in combination. (Id. at 14.)

At step four, the ALJ found that Claimant had the RFC to perform light work with the following additional restrictions:

[S]he can push and pull as much as she can lift and carry; never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; occasional exposure to extreme heat, extreme cold, and humidity; must avoid hazards such as unprotected heights and dangerous machinery; no operation of a motor vehicle to carry out job duties; limited to indoor work with ready access to a restroom; simple, routine tasks; occasional contact with supervisors, coworkers, and the public.

(Id. at 16.) The ALJ further found Claimant is unable to perform her past relevant work. (Id. at 20.)

At step five, the ALJ found that there were jobs that existed in significant numbers in the national economy that Claimant could perform including marker, photocopy operator, and page. (Id. at 21.) Therefore, the ALJ concluded Claimant was not disabled. (Id.)

B. The Substantial Evidence Standard

The ALJ's decision must be affirmed "if it is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole." Moore, 572 F.3d at 522. "The phrase 'substantial evidence' is a 'term of art' used throughout administrative law. . . . [T]he threshold for such evidentiary sufficiency...

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