Stacy v. Astrue, CASE NO. 2:10-cv-01057
| Decision Date | 22 July 2011 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 2:10-cv-01057 |
| Parties | PAULA M. STACY, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia |
This is an action seeking review of the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying Claimant's application for Supplemental Security Income ("SSI"), under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381-1383f. Both parties have consented in writing to a decision by the United States Magistrate Judge and filed briefs in support of judgment on the pleadings.1
Plaintiff, Paula M. Stacy (hereinafter referred to as "Claimant"), protectively filed an application for SSI on August 21, 2007, alleging disability as of August 13, 2007, due to breast cancer, anxiety attacks, nerves, headaches. (Tr. at 173-76, 193, 250.) The claim was denied initially and upon reconsideration. (Tr. at 96-100, 106-08.) On June 9, 2008, Claimant requested ahearing before an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"). (Tr. at 10911.) The hearing was held on March 3, 2009, before the Honorable Theodore Burock. (Tr. at 75-93.) A supplemental hearing was held on September 3, 2009. (Tr. at 25-74.) By decision dated September 22, 2009, the ALJ determined that Claimant was not entitled to benefits. (Tr. at 11-24.) The ALJ's decision became the final decision of the Commissioner on June 18, 2010, when the Appeals Council denied Claimant's request for review. (Tr. at 1-4.) On August 30, 2010, Claimant brought the present action seeking judicial review of the administrative decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Under 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5) and § 1382c(a)(3)(H)(i), a claimant for disability benefits has the burden of proving a disability. See Blalock v. Richardson, 483 F.2d 773, 774 (4th Cir. 1972). A disability is defined as the inability "to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which . . . can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months . . . ." 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(A).
The Social Security Regulations establish a "sequential evaluation" for the adjudication of disability claims. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920 (2009). If an individual is found "not disabled" at any step, further inquiry is unnecessary. Id. § 416.920(a). The first inquiry under the sequence is whether a claimant is currentlyengaged in substantial gainful employment. Id. § 416.920(b). If the claimant is not, the second inquiry is whether claimant suffers from a severe impairment. Id. § 416.920(c). If a severe impairment is present, the third inquiry is whether such impairment meets or equals any of the impairments listed in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of the Administrative Regulations No. 4. Id. § 416.920(d). If it does, the claimant is found disabled and awarded benefits. Id. If it does not, the fourth inquiry is whether the claimant's impairments prevent the performance of past relevant work. Id. § 416.920(e). By satisfying inquiry four, the claimant establishes a prima facie case of disability. Hall v. Harris, 658 F.2d 260, 264 (4th Cir. 1981). The burden then shifts to the Commissioner, McLain v. Schweiker, 715 F.2d 866, 868-69 (4th Cir. 1983), and leads to the fifth and final inquiry: whether the claimant is able to perform other forms of substantial gainful activity, considering claimant's remaining physical and mental capacities and claimant's age, education and prior work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(f) (2009). The Commissioner must show two things: (1) that the claimant, considering claimant's age, education, work experience, skills and physical shortcomings, has the capacity to perform an alternative job, and (2) that this specific job exists in the national economy. McLamore v. Weinberger, 538 F.2d 572, 574 (4th Cir. 1976).
In this particular case, the ALJ determined that Claimantsatisfied the first inquiry because she has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset date. (Tr. at 13.) Under the second inquiry, the ALJ found that Claimant suffers from the severe impairments of obesity, bladder incontinence and chronic diffuse pain. (Tr. at 13.) At the third inquiry, the ALJ concluded that Claimant's impairments do not meet or equal the level of severity of any listing in Appendix 1. (Tr. at 17.) The ALJ then found that Claimant has a residual functional capacity for light work, reduced by nonexertional limitations. (Tr. at 17.) Claimant has no past relevant work. (Tr. at 22.) Nevertheless, the ALJ concluded that Claimant could perform jobs such as price marker, sorter/inspector, and handpacker, which exist in significant numbers in the national economy. (Tr. at 23.) On this basis, benefits were denied. (Tr. at 24.)
Blalock v. Richardson, 483 F.2d 773, 776 (4th Cir. 1972) (quoting
Laws v. Cellebreze, 368 F.2d 640, 642 (4th Cir. 1966)). Additionally, the Commissioner, not the court, is charged with resolving conflicts in the evidence. Hays v.Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir. 1990). Nevertheless, the courts "must not abdicate their traditional functions; they cannot escape their duty to scrutinize the record as a whole to determine whether the conclusions reached are rational." Oppenheim v. Finch, 495 F.2d 396, 397 (4th Cir. 1974).
A careful review of the record reveals the decision of the Commissioner is not supported by substantial evidence.
Claimant was forty-three years old at the time of the first administrative hearing. (Tr. at 80.) Claimant completed the ninth grade. (Tr. at 82.) She has no past relevant work. (Tr. at 22.)
The court has reviewed all evidence of record, including the medical evidence of record, and will summarize it briefly below.
In August of 2007, Claimant was diagnosed with breast cancer and underwent a left breast mastectomy and was to undergo adjuvant chemotherapy. (Tr. at 272-73.) On April 1, 2008, Fred T. Pulido, Jr., M.D. performed left breast reconstruction with placement of a submuscular tissue expander. (Tr. at 314-15.) On December 28, 2008, Claimant underwent right breast mammoplasty with nipple and areolar transposition. (Tr. at 611-12.) On September 16, 2008,she underwent placement of a tissue expander with a gel implant and reconstruction of the capsule with allograft (neoform dermis) on the left breast. (Tr. at 619.) On May 4, 2009, Claimant underwent surgery for creation of a left nipple. (Tr. at 683.) Claimant was prescribed Tamoxifen for five years. (Tr. at 624-625.)
On January 2, 2008, a State agency medical source completed a Physical Residual Functional Capacity Assessment and opined that Claimant could perform medium work, with an occasional ability to climb ladders, ropes and scaffolds. (Tr. at 285-92.)
On February 4, 2008, and February 12, 2008, Michelle Akers, M.A. of Psychological Associates of Logan, Inc. examined Claimant at the request of her counsel. Claimant reported that breast cancer had destroyed her nerves. On the WAIS-III, Claimant attained a verbal IQ score of 60, a performance IQ score of 63 and a full scale IQ score of 58. Ms. Akers opined that the scores were externally invalid. (Tr. at 296.) Ms. Akers diagnosed major depressive disorder, single episode, severe on Axis I and deferred an Axis II diagnosis. She rated Claimant's GAF at 45-50.2 (Tr. at 297.)
On February 12, 2008, Ms. Akers completed a Medical Assessment of (Mental) Ability to do Work-Related Activities and opined thatClaimant's abilities were fair to poor in all categories. (Tr. at 299-302.)
On February 15, 2008, S.C. Bhanot, M.D. examined Claimant related to complaints of stress and urge incontinence. Claimant's complaints started when she began chemotherapy. He diagnosed 1B cystocele and stress and urge incontinence. He recommended further testing. (Tr. at 304.) On February 26, 2008, Dr. Bhanot examined Claimant. His diagnosis and plan remained the same. (Tr. at 305.)
On March 31, 2008, a State agency medical source completed a Physical Residual Functional Capacity Assessment and opined that Claimant could perform light work, with occasional postural limitations, a need to avoid even moderate exposure to fumes, odors, dusts, gases and poor ventilation and hazards, and a need to avoid concentrated exposure to extreme cold and heat and humidity. (Tr. at 306-13.)
On April 8, 2008, Elizabeth Durham, M.A. examined Claimant at the request of the State disability determination service. Ms. Durham diagnosed major depressive disorder, single episode, moderate, anxiety disorder, not otherwise specified on Axis I. She made no Axis II diagnosis. (Tr. at 321.)
On May 2, 2008, a State agency medical source completed a Psychiatric Review Technique form and opined that Claimant's mental impairments were not severe. (Tr. at 323-36.)
The record includes treatment notes from Process Strategiesdated April 14, 2008, through August 13, 2008. On April 14, 2008, William Hall, P.A. conducted a psychosocial assessment/intake. Mr. Hall diagnosed major depressive disorder and anxiety disorder, not otherwise specified on Axis I and dependent personality traits on Axis II. He rated Claimant's GAF at 49. He prescribed Xanax, Cymbalta and Zolpidem and referred Claimant for individual therapy. (Tr. at 381.) The record includes treatment notes from Mr. Hall dated May 12, 2008, June 16, 2008, July 15, 2008, and August 13, 2008. The treatment notes...
To continue reading
Request your trial