Hay v. Colvin

• Decision Date: 11 February 2016
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 8:15-cv-00236-JDA
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
• Parties: Patsy Ann Hay, Plaintiff, v. Carolyn W. Colvin, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

Patsy Ann Hay, Plaintiff, v. Carolyn W. Colvin, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 8:15-cv-00236-JDA

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

February 11, 2016

ORDER

This matter is before the Court for a final Order pursuant to Local Civil Rules 73.02(B)(1) and 83.VII.02, D.S.C.; 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); the parties' consent to disposition by a Magistrate Judge [Doc. 7]; and the Honorable Patrick Michael Duffy's January 21, 2015 Order of reference [Doc. 11]. 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").¹ For the reasons set forth below, the decision of the Commissioner is affirmed.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In July 2011, Plaintiff filed applications for DIB and SSI, alleging disability beginning on November 30, 2009.² [R. 196-209.] The claims were denied initially and onreconsideration by the Social Security Administration ("the Administration"). [R. 79-140.] Plaintiff requested a hearing before an administrative law judge ("ALJ"), and on June 7, 2013, ALJ Kelly Wilson held a hearing on Plaintiff's claims. [R. 38-78.]

On July 26, 2013, the ALJ issued her decision, finding Plaintiff not disabled under the Social Security Act ("the Act"). [R. 20-37.] At Step 1,³ the ALJ found Plaintiff met the insured status requirements of the Act through March 31, 2014, and had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since December 1, 2011, the alleged onset date. [R. 22, Findings 1 & 2.] At Step 2, the ALJ found Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: degenerative joint disease, depression, and borderline intellectual functioning. [R. 22, Finding 3.] At Step 3, the ALJ found Plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled one of the impairments listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. [R. 23, Finding 4.] The ALJ expressly considered Listings 12.02, 12.04, and 12.05. [R. 23-25.]

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 residual functional capacity to perform medium work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(c) and 416.967(c) except the claimant must avoid concentrated exposure to noise and hazards in the workplace such as industrial machinery and unprotected heights. The claimant is able to perform simple tasks, but no detailed or complex tasks. She is able to perform a low stress job, which I have defined as requiring occasional decision-making, occasional adaptation to change in a work setting, and no high production tasks such as high volume assembly line work. The claimant can haveoccasional contact with the public, but should not perform work that requires customer service, sales, or counter work. She can work in proximity to others, but would perform best in more solitary work task.

[R. 25, Finding 5.] Based on this RFC, the ALJ determined at Step 4 that Plaintiff was capable of performing her past relevant work as an agricultural inspector, hand riveter, and small production assembler worker. [R. 31, Finding 6.] Thus, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had not been under a disability, as defined in the Act, from November 30, 2009, through the date of the decision. [R. 32, Finding 7.]

Plaintiff requested Appeals Council review of the ALJ's decision but the Appeals Council declined. [R. 1-6]. Plaintiff filed this action for judicial review on January 16, 2015. [Doc. 1.]

THE PARTIES' POSITIONS

Plaintiff contends the ALJ's decision is not supported by substantial evidence and should be remanded because the ALJ erred in failing to consider the side effects of Plaintiff's medications pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529, SSR 96-7p, and SSR 96-8P; by failing to accord proper weight to the opinion of Plaintiff's treating/examining physician Dr. John Bradley; and by failing to properly evaluate Plaintiff's mental impairment under Listing 12.05C. [Doc. 17.] The Commissioner, however, contends the decision is supported by substantial evidence and that the ALJ properly found Plaintiff's subjective complaints, including her allegations of disabling medication-related side effects, were only partially credible; properly evaluated Dr. Bradley's disability opinion under the regulations; and properly evaluated Plaintiff's mental impairments using the special technique prescribed in the regulations. [Doc. 18.]

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. Commissioner, 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 courtto 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. Commissioner, 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 case on a complete record, including any new material evidence. See Smith, 782 F.2d at 1182 ("The [Commissioner] and the claimant may produce further evidence on remand."). After a remand under sentence four, the court enters a final and immediately appealable judgment and then loses jurisdiction. Sargent, 941 F.2d 1207 (citing Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 102 (1991)).

In contrast, sentence six provides:

The court may . . . at any time order additional evidence to be taken before the Commissioner of Social Security, but only upon a showing that there is new evidence which is material and that there is

...