Valle v. Saul
Decision Date | 18 September 2019 |
Docket Number | No. 3:18-CV-141-DCP,3:18-CV-141-DCP |
Parties | FRANCES M. VALLE, Plaintiff, v. ANDREW M. SAUL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee |
This case is before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the consent of the parties [Doc. 21]. Now before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support [Docs. 22 & 23] and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support [Docs. 24 & 25]. Frances Mary Valle ("Plaintiff") seeks judicial review of the decision of the Administrative Law Judge ("the ALJ"), the final decision of Defendant Andrew M. Saul ("the Commissioner"). For the reasons that follow, the Court will DENY Plaintiff's motion and GRANT the Commissioner's motion.
On September 27, 2012, Plaintiff filed an application for disability insurance benefits pursuant to Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 401 et seq., alleging disability beginning on July 1, 2011. [Tr. 163-66]. After her application was denied initially and upon reconsideration,Plaintiff requested a hearing before an ALJ. [Tr. 112-13]. A hearing was held on January 16, 2014 before ALJ John Dowling. [Tr. 59-90]. On February 10, 2014, ALJ Dowling found that Plaintiff was not disabled. [Tr. 42-53]. The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review on February 2, 2015. [Tr. 1-6].
After exhausting her administrative remedies, Plaintiff filed a Complaint with this Court on August 28, 2015, seeking judicial review of the Commissioner's final decision under Section 405(g) of the Social Security Act. See [Doc. 1] in Valle v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 3:15-cv-388-PLR-HBG; see also [Tr. 913-18]. On August 30, 2016, the Court accepted Magistrate Judge Guyton's report and recommendation, and remanded Plaintiff's case with instructions to further consider the opinion of her treating rheumatologist, Nguyet-Anh (Theresa) Tran, M.D., and for a new evaluation of Plaintiff's RFC. See Valle v. Colvin, No. 3:15-CV-388-PLR-HBG, 2016 WL 4534875, at *4-5 (E.D. Tenn. July 27, 2016), report and recommendation adopted by, 2016 WL 4536877 (E.D. Tenn. Aug. 30, 2016).
On November 10, 2016, the Appeals Council remanded Plaintiff's case to ALJ Mary Ellis Richardson for further proceedings consistent with this Court's Order. [Tr. 909-12].2 A hearing was held before ALJ Richardson on March 1, 2017. [Tr. 810-40]. On May 23, 2017, ALJ Richardson issued a partially favorable decision, and found Plaintiff to be disabled beginning April 9, 2014—but not prior to that date. [Tr. 779-97]. The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review on March 15, 2018 [Tr. 764-66], and she subsequently filed a Complaint with this Courton April 4, 2018 [Doc. 1]. The parties have filed competing dispositive motions, and this matter is now ripe for adjudication.
In her May 23, 2017 disability decision, ALJ Richardson made the following findings:
[Tr. 782-96].
When reviewing the Commissioner's determination of whether an individual is disabled pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the Court is limited to determining whether the ALJ's decision was reached through application of the correct legal standards and in accordance with the procedure mandated by the regulations and rulings promulgated by the Commissioner, and whether the ALJ's findings are supported by substantial evidence. Blakley v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399, 405 (6th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted); Wilson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 544 (6th Cir. 2004).
Substantial evidence is "more than a scintilla of evidence but less than a preponderance; it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Cutlip v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 25 F.3d 284, 286 (6th Cir. 1994) (citations omitted). It is immaterial whether the record may also possess substantial evidence to support a different conclusion from that reached by the ALJ, or whether the reviewing judge may have decided the case differently. Crisp v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 790 F.2d 450, 453 n.4 (6th Cir. 1986). The substantial evidence standard is intended to create a "'zone of choice' within which the Commissioner can act, without the fear of court interference." Buxton v. Halter, 246 F.3d 762, 773 (6th Cir. 2001) (quoting Mullen v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 535, 545 (6th Cir. 1986)). Therefore, the Court will not "try the case de novo, nor resolve conflicts in the evidence, nor decide questions of credibility." Garner v. Heckler, 745 F.2d 383, 387 (6th Cir. 1984) (citation omitted).
On review, the plaintiff "bears the burden of proving his entitlement to benefits." Boyes v. Sec'y. of Health & Human Servs., 46 F.3d 510, 512 (6th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted).
"Disability" is the inability "to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than twelve months." 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A) and 1382c(a)(3)(A). A claimant will only be considered disabled:
if his physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy, regardless of whether such work exists in the immediate area in which he lives, or whether a specific job vacancy exists for him, or whether he would be hired if he applied for work.
§§ 423(d)(2)(A) and 1382c(a)(3)(B).
Disability is evaluated pursuant to a...
To continue reading
Request your trial