Smith v. Colvin

• Decision Date: 04 May 2015
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 8:14-cv-00370-BHH-JDA
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
• Parties: Sarah Smith, Plaintiff, v. Carolyn W. Colvin, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

Sarah Smith, Plaintiff, v. Carolyn W. Colvin, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 8:14-cv-00370-BHH-JDA

DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION

May 4, 2015

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter is before the Court for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(a), D.S.C.¹ Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) to obtain judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("the Commissioner"), denying Plaintiff's claims for disability insurance benefits ("DIB") and supplemental security income ("SSI").² For the reasons set forth below, it is recommended that the decision of the Commissioner be reversed and remanded for administrative action consistent with this recommendation, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On January 8, 2008, Plaintiff filed applications for DIB and SSI alleging disability beginning January 23, 2007. [R. 394-409.] Plaintiff's claims were denied initially andupon reconsideration by the Social Security Administration ("the Administration"). [R. 288-92, 294-99.] Plaintiff requested a hearing before an administrative law judge ("ALJ") and on October 5, 2009; June 17, 2011 (after Appeals Council remand); and July 17, 2012 (supplemental hearing), ALJ Gregory M. Wilson conducted de novo hearings on Plaintiff's claims. [R. 185-287.] Plaintiff also filed subsequent applications for DIB and SSI on February 24, 2010 that were associated with Plaintiff's original claims remanded by the Appeals Council. [R. 448-464]

Subsequent to these hearings, the ALJ issued a decision on August 30, 2012, finding Plaintiff not disabled under the Social Security Act ("the Act"). [R. 33-64.] At Step 1,³ the ALJ found Plaintiff met the insured status requirements of the Act through March 31, 2013, and she had engaged in substantial gainful activity from the alleged onset date of January 23, 2007 until January 2008. [R. 36, Findings 1 & 2.] At Step 2, the ALJ found Plaintiff has severe impairments of: degenerative disc disease, degenerative joint disease, coronary artery disease, diabetes mellitus, obesity, and sleep apnea. [R. 37, Finding 3.] The ALJ also found Plaintiff has numerous non-severe impairments which no more than minimally affected her work activities, including: gastroesophageal reflux disease, urinary tract infections, hypertension, anemia, dyslipidemia, gout, nasal congestion and cough, knee pain, depression, and anxiety. [R. 37-38.] The ALJ concluded that Plaintiff's abdominal discomfort did not represent a medically determinable impairment. [R. 38.]

At Step 3, the ALJ determined Plaintiff did not have an impairment or combinationof impairments that met or medically equaled the criteria of one of the impairments listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. [R. 47, Finding 4.] Before addressing Step 4, Plaintiff's ability to perform her past relevant work, the ALJ found Plaintiff retained the following residual functional capacity ("RFC"):

After careful consideration of the entire record, I find that the claimant has the RFC to lift/carry a maximum of 10 pounds frequently and 20 pounds occasionally, to walk for a maximum total of two hours in a workday, stand for a maximum total of two hours and sit for six of eight hours. She has the following additional postural, environmental and manipulative limitations: never climb ladders/ropes/scaffolds, occasionally perform all other postural activities, frequently handle, finger and feel, and avoid concentrated exposure to temperature extremes and hazards (machinery, heights, etc.).

[R. 53, Finding 5.] Based on this RFC, at Step 4, the ALJ determined Plaintiff was unable to perform her past relevant work as a nursing assistant. [R. 63, Finding 6.] Considering Plaintiff's age, education, work experience, RFC, and the testimony of the vocational expert, the ALJ determined that there are jobs that existed in significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform. [R. 63, Finding 10.] Accordingly, the ALJ concluded Plaintiff has not been under a disability, as defined by the Act, from January 23, 2007, through the date of the decision. [R. 64, Finding 11.] Plaintiff requested Appeals Council review of the ALJ's decision, and the Council declined review. [R. 1-6.] Plaintiff filed this action for judicial review on February 10, 2014. [Doc. 1.]

THE PARTIES' POSITIONS

Plaintiff contends the ALJ's decision is not supported by substantial evidence and claims the ALJ erred by failing to properly weigh the opinions of Dr. Alfred G. Jonas ("Dr. Jonas"), the medical expert who testified at the hearing, Dr. Carol Kooistra ("Dr. Kooistra"),and Dr. Gowdhami Mohan ("Dr. Mohan"). [Doc. 17 at 26-37.] Plaintiff further contends the Appeals Council erred by failing to properly consider new evidence affecting the ALJ's decision. [Id. at 37-38.]

The Commissioner, on the other hand, contends the ALJ's weighing of the medical opinions of Drs. Jonas, Kooistra, and Mohan is supported by substantial evidence [Doc. 19 at 21-32], and that Plaintiff failed to show that treatment records from Dr. Moran submitted to the Appeals Council were both new and material. [id. at 32-35.]

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Commissioner's findings of fact are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla—i.e., the evidence must do more than merely create a suspicion of the existence of a fact and must include such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support the conclusion. See Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) (quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)); Laws v. Celebrezze, 368 F.2d 640, 642 (4th Cir. 1966) (citing Woolridge v. Celebrezze, 214 F. Supp. 686, 687 (S.D.W. Va. 1963)) ("Substantial evidence, it has been held, is evidence which a reasoning mind would accept as sufficient to support a particular conclusion. It consists of more than a mere scintilla of evidence but may be somewhat less than a preponderance. If there is evidence to justify a refusal to direct a verdict were the case before a jury, then there is 'substantial evidence.'").

Where conflicting evidence "allows reasonable minds to differ as to whether a claimant is disabled, the responsibility for that decision falls on the [Commissioner] (or the[Commissioner's] designate, the ALJ)," not on the reviewing court. Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir. 1996); see also Edwards v. Sullivan, 937 F.2d 580, 584 n.3 (11th Cir. 1991) (stating that where the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence, the court will affirm, even if the reviewer would have reached a contrary result as finder of fact and even if the reviewer finds that the evidence preponderates against the Commissioner's decision). Thus, it is not within the province of a reviewing court to determine the weight of the evidence, nor is it the court's function to substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner so long as the decision is supported by substantial evidence. See Bird v. Comm'r, 699 F.3d 337, 340 (4th Cir. 2012); Laws, 368 F.2d at 642; Snyder v. Ribicoff, 307 F.2d 518, 520 (4th Cir. 1962).

The reviewing court will reverse the Commissioner's decision on plenary review, however, if the decision applies incorrect law or fails to provide the court with sufficient reasoning to determine that the Commissioner properly applied the law. Myers v. Califano, 611 F.2d 980, 982 (4th Cir. 1980); see also Keeton v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 21 F.3d 1064, 1066 (11th Cir. 1994). Where the Commissioner's decision "is in clear disregard of the overwhelming weight of the evidence, Congress has empowered the courts to modify or reverse the [Commissioner's] decision 'with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing.'" Vitek v. Finch, 438 F.2d 1157, 1158 (4th Cir. 1971) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)). Remand is unnecessary where "the record does not contain substantial evidence to support a decision denying coverage under the correct legal standard and when reopening the record for more evidence would serve no purpose." Breeden v. Weinberger, 493 F.2d 1002, 1012 (4th Cir. 1974).

The court may remand a case to the Commissioner for a rehearing under sentence four or sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Sargent v. Sullivan, 941 F.2d 1207 (4th Cir. 1991) (unpublished table decision). To remand under sentence four, the reviewing court must find either that the Commissioner's decision is not supported by substantial evidence or that the Commissioner incorrectly applied the law relevant to the disability claim. See, e.g., Jackson v. Chater, 99 F.3d 1086, 1090-91 (11th Cir. 1996) (holding remand was appropriate where the ALJ failed to develop a full and fair record of the claimant's residual functional capacity); Brehem v. Harris, 621 F.2d 688, 690 (5th Cir. 1980) (holding remand was appropriate where record was insufficient to affirm but was also insufficient for court to find the claimant disabled). Where the court cannot discern the basis for the Commissioner's decision, a remand under sentence four is usually the proper course to allow the Commissioner to explain the basis for the decision or for additional investigation. See Radford v. Comm'r, 734 F.3d 288, 295 (4th Cir. 2013) (quoting Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729, 744 (1985);see also Smith v. Heckler, 782 F.2d 1176, 1181-82 (4th Cir. 1986) (remanding case where decision of ALJ contained "a gap in its reasoning" because ALJ did not say he was discounting testimony or why); Gordon v. Schweiker, 725 F.2d 231, 235 (4th Cir. 1984) (remanding case where neither the ALJ nor the Appeals Council indicated the weight given to relevant evidence). On remand under sentence four, the ALJ should review the...