Slocum v. Saul
| Decision Date | 01 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 20-815-JWD-EWD |
| Parties | RHONDA ANN SLOCUM v. ANDREW M. SAUL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana |
NOTICE
Please take notice that the attached Magistrate Judge's Report has been filed with the Clerk of the U.S. District Court.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), you have 14 days after being served with the attached report to file written objections to the proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations set forth therein. Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations within 14 days after being served will bar you, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the District Court.
ABSOLUTELY NO EXTENSION OF TIME SHALL BE GRANTED TO FILE WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT.
Rhonda Ann Slocum (“Plaintiff”) brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the “Commissioner”) denying her application for Title II disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) and Title XVI supplemental security income (“SSI”).[1] Plaintiff has filed a Brief Regarding Social Security Appeal,[2] the Commissioner has filed an Opposition Memorandum,[3] and Plaintiff has filed a Reply Brief.[4] Based on the applicable standard of review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), substantial evidence supports the Commissioner's decision, and the administrative law judge applied the correct legal standards. Accordingly, it is recommended that the Commissioner's decision be affirmed.
On February 7, 2019, Plaintiff filed an application for DIB and SSI, alleging disability beginning January 18, 2018.[5] Plaintiff's claim was initially denied on July 2, 2019[6] and was denied on reconsideration on September 13, 2019.[7] Thereafter Plaintiff timely requested a hearing before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”).[8] A hearing was held on April 15 2020, at which Plaintiff, who was represented by an attorney, testified.[9] Vocational Expert (“VE”) Crystal Younger also testified.[10] On April 27, 2020, the ALJ issued a notice of unfavorable decision.[11] Plaintiff timely filed a counseled request for review by the Appeals Council.[12] On October 5, 2020, the Appeal's Council denied review.[13]
On December 3, 2020, Plaintiff timely filed her Complaint in this Court.[14] Accordingly, Plaintiff exhausted her administrative remedies before filing this action for judicial review and the Appeals Council's decision is the Commissioner's final decision for purposes of judicial review.[15]
A claimant has the burden of proving that he or she suffers from a disability, which is defined as a medically determinable physical or mental impairment lasting at least 12 months that prevents the claimant from engaging in substantial gainful activity.[16] The regulations require the ALJ to apply a five-step sequential evaluation to each claim for benefits.[17] In the five-step sequence, the Commissioner must determine whether: (1) the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) the claimant has a severe medically determinable impairment(s); (3) the impairment(s) meets or equals the severity of a listed impairment in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 of the regulations; (4) the impairment(s) prevents the claimant from performing past relevant work; and (5) the impairment(s) prevents the claimant from doing any other work.[18]
The burden rests upon the claimant to prove disability throughout the first four steps of this five-step process.[19] If the claimant is successful at the first four steps then the burden shifts to the Commissioner to prove, considering the claimant's residual functional capacity (“RFC”), age, education and past work experience, that he or she is capable of performing other work.[20] 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.[21]
Here, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the January 10, 2018 alleged onset date.[22] At the second step, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: Depression, Anxiety, and Borderline Intellectual Function, which significantly limited her ability to perform basic work activities.[23] The ALJ also considered the cumulative effects on her ability to function of Plaintiff's history of bilateral foot pain and physical findings indicating obesity and determined that the “objective findings…provide no additional limitation to function because of obesity.”[24] At the third step, the ALJ found that Plaintiff's impairments, considered alone or in combination, did not meet or medically equal the criteria of 12.04 “Depressive, bipolar and related disorders”; 12.06 “Anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorders”; or 12.11 “Neurodevelopmental disorders.”[25] In making this finding, the ALJ considered the revised “paragraph B” criteria listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, 12.00(E),[26] and the effects of those impairments on Plaintiff's functional abilities.[27] Although the ALJ found Plaintiff's mental impairments to be “severe,” he also found that the impairments did not meet or equal the severity of any impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 because Plaintiff's mental impairments did not result in “at least two ‘marked' limitations or one ‘extreme' limitation” in any functional area.[28] The ALJ also found that the evidence “fails to establish” the requirements of the paragraph C criteria (that the impairments were “serious and persistent”) because “[a]lthough there is a medically documented history of the existence of the mental disorder(s) over a period of at least two years, there is no evidence of minimal capacity to adapt to changes in the claimant's environment or to demands that are not already part of the claimant's daily life.”[29] Next, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had the RFC[30] to perform a full range of work at all exertional levels but with the following nonexertional limitations:
[T]he claimant's ability to understand, remember and carryout instructions is limited to simple, routine tasks; use of judgment is limited to simple work-related decisions; occasional interactions with supervisors and coworkers; occasional/non-confrontational interactions with the general public; and with a consistent setting and schedule.[31]
The ALJ then evaluated Plaintiff's RFC to determine whether, despite her severe impairments, she was able to do any of her past relevant work as a “Garden Worker” (Dictionary of Occupational Titles[32] (“DOT”) 406.684-018).[33] The ALJ found that Plaintiff was unable to perform her past relevant work based on the VE's testimony that an individual with Plaintiff's age, education, work experience, and RFC would be unable to do so.[34]
Proceeding to the fifth step, the ALJ relied on the Medical-Vocational Guidelines as a framework and the testimony of the VE to make his disability finding.[35] The VE testified that someone with Plaintiff's age, education, work history, and RFC could perform the requirements of the following occupations: (1) stock clerk (DOT 922.687-058), medium exertional level, SVP[36] level 2, with 80,500 jobs nationally; (2) commercial cleaner (DOT 381.687-018), medium exertional level, SVP level 2, with 982,200 jobs nationally; and (3) hospital cleaner (DOT 323.687-010), medium exertional level, SVP 2, with 445,900 jobs nationally.[37] Thus, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had not been under a disability from the January 10, 2018 alleged onset date through December 31, 2019, the date Plaintiff was last insured.[38] The Appeals Council denied review of the ALJ's decision that Plaintiff was not disabled.[39]
On appeal, Plaintiff argues three assignments of error, for which she contends the “only solution” is “remand.”[40] First, Plaintiff contends that the ALJ “did not follow the jurisprudence of Audler v. Astrue, 501 F.3d 466 (5th Cir. 2007)” because he “did not explain how Plaintiff would not meet Listing 12.05 for an Intellectual Disorder, despite a diagnosis of borderline intellectual functioning and its recognition by the ALJ that this was a severe impairment.”[41] Specifically, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ “failed to meet the Audler standard” because the ALJ “did not examine the requirements of [Listing] 12.05 and compare Plaintiff's impairments to its requirements” or even “mention [Listing] 12.05 at all.”[42] Second, Plaintiff contends the ALJ erred by not “follow[ing] federal procedural regulations for examining mental health impairments.”[43] Plaintiff argues that the ALJ's evaluation of the Paragraph B criteria is flawed because the ALJ “dismiss[ed] the opinions of a treating doctor, Dr. [Kumari L.] Moturu, and of Dr. [Seth] Kunen, an independent consultative examiner hired by the [Commissioner],” “did not reference any medical records whatsoever,” and “substitute[d] his own judgment” over that of “Plaintiff's treating physicians.”[44] Additionally, Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred by not finding that she meets or medically equals the Listing 12.05 requirements, considering that Plaintiff “scored only one point above an automatic qualification for disability under Listing 12.05, as a 70 [IQ score] would have made her qualified for benefits.”[45]
Third Plaintiff contends that the “ALJ failed...
To continue reading
Request your trial