Vigil v. Saul
| Decision Date | 25 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. CV 20-632 CG,CV 20-632 CG |
| Parties | KRISTA VIGIL, Plaintiff, v. ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Krista Vigil's Motion to Reverse and/or Remand (the "Motion"), (Doc. 24), filed February 26, 2021; Defendant Commissioner Andrew Saul's Brief in Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Reverse and/or Remand (the "Response"), (Doc. 26), filed April 27, 2021; and Ms. Vigil's Reply in Support of Motion to Reverse and/or Remand (the "Reply"), (Doc. 27), filed May 10, 2021.
Ms. Vigil applied for disability insurance benefits on May 2, 2017, alleging disability beginning July 21, 2015. (Administrative Record "AR" 39). In her application, Ms. Vigil claimed she was limited in her ability to work due to acute and chronic fibromyalgia, neuro-pseudotumor cerebri, acute and chronic depression, acute and chronic anxiety, post traumatic right knee, facet hypotrophy in neck/spine, acute and chronic fatigue, total knee replacement, high blood pressure and heartburn. (AR 118). Ms. Vigil's application was denied initially on January 11, 2018, and upon reconsideration on April 17, 2018. (AR 116, 143). Ms. Vigil requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"), which was held on February 26, 2019, before ALJ Jennifer M. Fellabaum. (AR 30-45).
At the hearing, Ms. Vigil appeared with impartial Vocational Expert ("VE") Thomas A. Greiner but without legal counsel. (AR 30). ALJ Fellabaum issued her decision on June 19, 2019, finding Ms. Vigil not disabled at any time between her alleged disability onset date through the date of the decision. (AR 45). Ms. Vigil then requested review of ALJ Fellabaum's decision before the Appeals Council, which was denied on May 21, 2020. (AR 1). Ms. Vigil now challenges ALJ Fellabaum's June 19, 2019 decision denying her claim for disability insurance benefits. See (Doc. 24).
In her Motion, Ms. Vigil argues ALJ Fellabaum erred in three respects: (1) she failed to incorporate the state agency psychological consultants' assessed limitations with supervisors without explanation, (2) she failed to properly consider Dr. Murgula's medical opinions, and (3) she failed to consider Dr. Crotwell's opinion that Ms. Vigil's "psychological status is likely connected with and exacerbates her experience of physical health problems." (Doc. 24 at 23-25). Ms. Vigil also argues the Court should grant remand so that the Social Security Administration can consider the opinion of treating source Jennifer Trujillo, PA-C, which was submitted at the Appeals Council level. Id. at 25-26.
The Court has reviewed the Motion, the Response, the Reply, and the relevant law. Additionally, the Court has meticulously reviewed the administrative record. Because ALJ Fellabaum erred in her failure to incorporate or explain her rejection of Ms. Vigil's limitations in interacting with supervisors, the Court finds Ms. Vigil's Motion is well-taken and shall be GRANTED, and this case shall be REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The standard of review in a Social Security appeal is whether the Commissioner's final decision is supported by substantial evidence and whether the correct legal standards were applied. Maes v. Astrue, 522 F.3d 1093, 1096 (10th Cir. 2008) (citing Hamilton v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 961 F.2d 1495, 1497-98 (10th Cir. 1992)). If substantial evidence supports the Commissioner's findings and the correct legal standards were applied, the Commissioner's decision stands and the plaintiff is not entitled to relief. See Langley v. Barnhart, 373 F.3d 1116, 1118 (10th Cir. 2004); Hamlin v. Barnhart, 365 F.3d 1208, 1214 (10th Cir. 2004); Doyal v. Barnhart, 331 F.3d 758, 760 (10th Cir. 2003). The Commissioner's "failure to apply the correct legal standards, or to show . . . that she has done so, are also grounds for reversal." Winfrey v. Chater, 92 F.3d 1017, 1019 (10th Cir. 1996) (citing Washington v. Shalala, 37 F.3d 1437, 1439 (10th Cir. 1994)). A court should meticulously review the entire record but should neither re-weigh the evidence nor substitute its judgment for the Commissioner's. See Langley, 373 F.3d at 1118; Hamlin, 365 F.3d at 1214. A court's review is limited to the Commissioner's final decision. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2018). Therefore, when the Appeals Council denies review, the ALJ's decision becomes the Commissioner's final decision for purposes of judicial review. Threet v. Barnhart, 353 F.3d 1185, 1187 (10th Cir. 2003) (citing O'Dell v. Shalala, 44 F.3d 855, 858 (10th Cir. 1994)).
"Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Doyal, 331 F.3d at 760 (quoting Fowler v. Bowen, 876 F.2d 1451, 1453 (10th Cir.1989)) (internal quotation marks omitted). AnALJ's decision "is not based on substantial evidence if it is overwhelmed by other evidence in the record or if there is a mere scintilla of evidence supporting it." Langley, 373 F.3d at 1118 (quoting Bernal v. Bowen, 851 F.2d 297, 299 (10th Cir.1988)) (internal quotation marks omitted). While the Court may not re-weigh the evidence or try the issues de novo, its examination of the record must include "anything that may undercut or detract from the ALJ's findings in order to determine if the substantiality test has been met." Grogan v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 1257, 1262 (10th Cir. 2005) (citing Sisco v. United States Dep't of Health and Human Servs., 10 F.3d 739, 741 (10th Cir.1993); Washington v. Shalala, 37 F.3d 1437, 1439 (10th Cir.1994)). However, "[t]he possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent [the ALJ]'s findings from being supported by substantial evidence." Lax v. Astrue, 489 F.3d 1080, 1084 (10th Cir. 2007) (quoting Zoltanski v. F.A.A., 372 F.3d 1195, 1200 (10th Cir. 2004)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
For purposes of disability insurance benefits, a claimant establishes a disability when she is unable "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 12 months." 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1505(a). In order to determine whether a claimant is disabled, the Commissioner follows a five-step sequential evaluation process ("SEP"). Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140 (1987); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520.
At the first four steps of the SEP, the claimant bears the burden of showing (1)she is not engaged in "substantial gainful activity"; (2) she has a "severe medically determinable . . . impairment . . . or a combination of impairments" that has lasted or is expected to last for at least one year; and either (3) her impairment(s) meet or equal one of the "listings" of presumptively disabling impairments found in 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1.; or (4) she is unable to perform her "past relevant work." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i-iv); see also Grogan, 399 at 1261. If the ALJ determines the claimant cannot engage in past relevant work, the ALJ will proceed to step five of the evaluation. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g)(1); Grogan, 399 F.3d at 1261. At step five, the Commissioner bears the burden of showing that the claimant is able to perform other work in the national economy, considering the claimant's RFC, age, education, and work experience. Grogan, 399 F.3d at 1261.
In her application, Ms. Vigil claimed she was limited in her ability to work due to acute and chronic fibromyalgia, neuro-pseudotumor cerebri, acute and chronic depression, acute and chronic anxiety, post traumatic right knee, facet hypotrophy in neck/spine, acute and chronic fatigue, total knee replacement, high blood pressure and heartburn. (AR 118). At step one, ALJ Fellabaum determined Ms. Vigil had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since July 21, 2015, the alleged disability onset date. (AR 33). At step two, ALJ Fellabaum found Ms. Vigil had the severe impairments of right knee osteoarthritis with ACL repair, left knee degenerative joint disease (beginning November 2017), degenerative disc disease, scoliosis, obesity, depression, anxiety, fibromyalgia, plantar fasciitis, benign intracranial hypertension, migraines, and somatic symptom disorder. (AR 33).
At step three, ALJ Fellabaum determined Ms. Vigil's impairments, solely or in combination, did not meet or equal one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 404.1525, 404.1526. (AR 33). ALJ Fellabaum then found Ms. Vigil had the RFC to perform "sedentary work." (AR 36). In addition, ALJ Fellabaum found Ms. Vigil was restricted to occasionally stooping, crouching, kneeling, crawling, and climbing ramps and stairs. (AR 36). She also found Ms. Vigil was restricted to never climbing ladders, ropes or scaffolds, being exposed to unprotected heights or hazardous machinery, or having concentrated exposure to environmental irritants. (AR 36). Further, ALJ Fellabaum found Ms. Vigil was limited to occasionally using right foot controls, and beginning in November 2017, limited to occasionally using foot controls bilaterally. (AR 36). She found Ms. Vigil can frequently finger and handle bilaterally. (AR 36). Finally, with regard to Ms. Vigil's mental RFC, ALG Fellabaum found that Ms. Vigil can perform unskilled or semi-skilled work up to specific vocational preparation ("SVP") level 4, she cannot perform fast-paced production work, and she is limited to occasional interaction with the general public. (AR 36).
In formulating Ms. Vigil's RFC, ALJ Fellabaum stated she considered her symptoms and the extent to which those symptoms could reasonably be accepted as consistent with objective...
To continue reading
Request your trial