Thompson v. Astrue, Civil Action No. 3:10-00844

• Decision Date: 11 July 2011
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 3:10-00844
• Parties: SUSAN BETH THOMPSON, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee

SUSAN BETH THOMPSON, Plaintiff,

v.MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,Commissioner of Social Security Defendant.

Civil Action No. 3:10-00844

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION

Dated: July 11, 2011

Judge Wiseman / Knowles

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This is a civil action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3), to obtain judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security finding that Plaintiff was not disabled and denying Plaintiff Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB") and Supplemental Security Income ("SSI"), as provided under the Social Security Act ("the Act"), as amended. The case is currently pending on Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record. Docket No. 12. Defendant has filed a Response, arguing that the decision of the Commissioner was supported by substantial evidence and should be affirmed. Docket No. 15. Plaintiff has filed a Reply. Docket No. 16.

For the reasons stated below, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record be DENIED, and that the decision of the Commissioner be AFFIRMED.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff filed her applications for DIB and SSI on September 1, 2005 with a protective filing date of August 11, 2005.¹ Docket No. 17, Attachment ("TR"), TR 52, 367, 370. Plaintiff alleged disability since March 28, 2001, but later amended her onset date to February 15, 2006.² TR 52, 397. Plaintiff alleges disability due to diabetes, "wrist trouble," high blood pressure, "pain throughout body," and retinal problems. TR 70. Plaintiff's applications were denied both initially (TR 30, 370) and upon reconsideration (TR 32, 376). Plaintiff subsequently requested (TR 50-51) and received (TR 22) a hearing. Plaintiffs‘ hearing was conducted on May 13, 2008 by Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") Donald E. Garrison. TR 13, 381. Plaintiff and vocational expert ("VE"), Jane Brenton, appeared and testified. TR 381-82.

On October 3, 2008, the ALJ issued a decision unfavorable to Plaintiff, finding that Plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act and Regulations. TR 11-21. Specifically, the ALJ made the following findings of fact:

1. The claimant met the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act through December 31, 2007.

2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since February 12, 2006, the amended onset date (20 CFR 404.1520(b), 404.1571 et seq, 416.920(b) and 416.971 et seq.).

3. The claimant has the following severe impairments:

diabetes, retinopathy, neuropathy, tendonitis, degenerative joint disease, and carpal tunnel syndrome (20 CFR 404.1520(c) and 416.920(c)).

4. The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 CFR 404.1520(d), 404.1525, 404.1526, 416.920(d), 416.925 and 416.926).

5. After careful consideration of the entire record, the undersigned finds that the claimant has the residual functional capacity for lifting/carrying 20 pounds occasionally and frequently; sitting 6 hours (3 hours uninterrupted); standing 6 hours (2 hours uninterrupted); walking 4 hours (1 hour uninterrupted); occasional reaching, handling, fingering, feeling, pushing/pulling, and operating foot controls; occasional climbing, balancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching and crawling; no reading very small print, but able to read newspaper or book print and computer screens; no exposure to unprotected heights and moving machinery; occasional operation of motor vehicles; and occasional exposure to humidity/wetness, irritating inhalants, temperature extremes and vibration.

6. The claimant is unable to perform any past relevant work as a tow motor operator which is classified by the DOT as medium semiskilled work) (20 CFR 404.1565 and 416.965).

7. The claimant was born on October 15, 1966 and was a younger individual on the amended disability onset date (20 CFR 404.1563 and 416.963).

8. The claimant has at least a high school education and is able to communicate in English (20 CFR 404.1564 and 416.964).

9. Transferability of job skills is not material to the determination of disability because using the Medical Vocational Rules as a framework supports a finding that the claimant is "not disabled," whether or not the claimant has transferable job skills (See SSR 82-41 and 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2).

10. Considering the claimant's age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity, there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that the claimant can perform (20 CFR 404.1560(c), 404.1566, 404.960(c), and 416.966).

11. The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, from February 12, 2006 through the date of this decision (20 CFR 404.1520(g) and 416.920(g)).

TR 15-21.

On October 13, 2008, Plaintiff timely filed a request for review of the hearing decision. TR 7-10. On July 9, 2010, the Appeals Council issued a letter declining to review the case (TR 4-6), thereby rendering the decision of the ALJ the final decision of the Commissioner. This civil action was thereafter timely filed, and the Court has jurisdiction. 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3). If the Commissioner's findings are supported by substantial evidence, based upon the record as a whole, then these findings are conclusive. Id.

II. REVIEW OF THE RECORD

The parties and the ALJ have thoroughly summarized and discussed the medical and testimonial evidence of Record. Accordingly, the Court will discuss those matters only to the extent necessary to analyze the parties' arguments.

III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

A. Standards of Review

This Court's review of the Commissioner's decision is limited to the record made in the administrative hearing process. Jones v. Secretary, 945 F.2d 1365, 1369 (6th Cir. 1991). The purpose of this review is to determine (1) whether substantial evidence exists in the record to support the Commissioner's decision, and (2) whether any legal errors were committed in theprocess of reaching that decision. Landsaw v. Secretary, 803 F.2d 211, 213 (6th Cir. 1986).

"Substantial evidence" means "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support the conclusion." Her v. Commissioner, 203 F.3d 388, 389 (6th Cir. 1999) (citing Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)). "Substantial evidence" has been further quantified as "more than a mere scintilla of evidence, but less than a preponderance." Bell v. Commissioner, 105 F.3d 244, 245 (6th Cir. 1996) (citing Consolidated Edison Co. v. N.L.R.B., 305 U.S. 197, 229, 59 S.Ct. 206, 216, 83 L.Ed. 126 (1938)).

The reviewing court does not substitute its findings of fact for those of the Commissioner if substantial evidence supports the Commissioner's findings and inferences. Garner v. Heckler, 745 F.2d 383, 387 (6th Cir. 1984). In fact, even if the evidence could also support a different conclusion, the decision of the Administrative Law Judge must stand if substantial evidence supports the conclusion reached. Her, 203 F.3d at 389 (citing Key v. Callahan, 109 F.3d 270, 273 (6th Cir. 1997)). If the Commissioner did not consider the record as a whole, however, the Commissioner's conclusion is undermined. Hurst v. Secretary, 753 F.2d 517, 519 (6th Cir. 1985) (citing Allen v. Califano, 613 F.2d 139, 145 (6th Cir. 1980) (citing Futernick v. Richardson, 484 F.2d 647 (6th Cir. 1973))).

In reviewing the decisions of the Commissioner, courts look to four types of evidence: (1) objective medical findings regarding Plaintiff's condition; (2) diagnosis and opinions of medical experts; (3) subjective evidence of Plaintiff's condition; and (4) Plaintiff‘s age, education, and work experience. Miracle v. Celebrezze, 351 F.2d 361, 374 (6th Cir. 1965).

B. Proceedings At The Administrative Level

The claimant carries the ultimate burden to establish an entitlement to benefits byproving his or her "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. § 423(d)(1)(A). "Substantial gainful activity" not only includes previous work performed by Plaintiff, but also, considering Plaintiff's age, education, and work experience, any other relevant work that exists in the national economy in significant numbers regardless of whether such work exists in the immediate area in which Plaintiff lives, or whether a specific job vacancy exists, or whether Plaintiff would be hired if he or she applied. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A).

At the administrative level of review, the claimant's case is considered under a five-step sequential evaluation process as follows:

(1) If the claimant is working and the work constitutes substantial gainful activity, benefits are automatically denied.

(2) If the claimant is not found to have an impairment which significantly limits his or her ability to work (a "severe" impairment), then he or she is not disabled.

(3) If the claimant is not working and has a severe impairment, it must be determined whether he or she suffers from one of the "listed" impairments³ or its equivalent. If a listing is met or equaled, benefits are owing without further inquiry.

(4) If the claimant does not suffer from any listing-level impairments, it must be determined whether the claimant can return to the job he or she previously held in light of his or her residual functional capacity (e.g., what the claimant can still do despite his or her limitations). By showing a medical condition that prevents him or her from returning to such past relevant work, the claimant establishes a prima facie case of disability.

(5) Once the claimant establishes a prima facie case of disability,the burden shifts to the Commissioner to establish the claimant's ability to work by proving the

...