Voorhees v. Colvin, CASE NO. 3:13–cv–02583–GBC

Decision Date30 September 2015
Docket NumberCASE NO. 3:13–cv–02583–GBC
Citation215 F.Supp.3d 358
Parties Amanda Marie VOORHEES, Plaintiff, v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania

Emily Karr–Cook, Law Office of Emily Karr–Cook, Elmira, NY, for Plaintiff.

Mark.E. Morrison, U.S. Attorney's Office–Social Security, Harrisburg, PA, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM

GERALD B. COHN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I. Procedural Background

On March 28, 2008, Amanda Marie Voorhees ("Plaintiff") filed as a claimant for disability insurance benefits under Title II and XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401 –34, 1181–1183f, with a date last insured of September 30, 2007.1 (Administrative Transcript (hereinafter, "Tr."), 16). Plaintiff also applied for Social Security Child's Insurance Benefits ("CIB") pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 402(d) and initially claimed a disability onset date of July 2, 2003, and later amended onset to January 1, 2006,2 when she was twenty-years-old. (Tr. 16, 18, 68, 233).3

On March 31, 2010, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an unfavorable hearing decision. (Tr. 95–113). Plaintiff filed a request for review, and on December 28, 2010, the Appeals Council remanded the case for re-determination. (Tr. 114–118). The ALJ held an additional hearing on June 21, 2011. (Tr. 36–63). On July 15, 2011, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the Act. (Tr. 13–35)). Plaintiff sought review of the unfavorable decision which the Appeals Council denied on August 12, 2013, thereby affirming the decision of the ALJ as the "final decision" of the Commissioner. (Tr. 1–5).

On October 17, 2013, Plaintiff filed the above-captioned action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3), to appeal a decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying social security benefits. Doc. 1. On January 15, 2014, the Commissioner ("Defendant") filed an answer and an administrative transcript of proceedings. Doc. 12, 13. On February 26 and 27, Plaintiff filed a brief in support of the appeal ("Pl.Brief") and an additional exhibit. Doc. 16, 17. On March 27, 2014, Defendant filed a brief in response. Doc. 18 ("Def.Brief"). On April 10, 2014, Plaintiff submitted a reply brief. Doc. 19 ("Pl.Reply"). On November 5, 2014, the Court referred this case to the undersigned Magistrate Judge. Both parties consented to the referral of this case to the undersigned Magistrate Judge, and an order referring the case to the undersigned Magistrate Judge was entered on March 20, 2015. (Doc. 23.)

II. Relevant Facts in the Record

Plaintiff was born on July 2, 1985, and thus was classified by the regulations as a younger person through the date of the ALJ decision rendered on July 15, 2011. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1563(c) ; (Tr. 233). Plaintiff completed the tenth grade, withdrew from high school in October 2003, received a GED in 2004, and attended training as a certified nursing assistant in 2005 but did not complete the program. (Tr. 69, 252). Plaintiff has two young children who are not in her physical custody and with who she could only have supervised visits. (Tr. 48, 54–55, 79). Plaintiff has been incarcerated from April 23, 2009, to May 1, 2009, on probation, and charged with neglect of her eldest child. (Tr. 76, 79–80, 678, 688–89, 694, 702–03, 705–07).

Earnings reports demonstrate that Plaintiff has worked several jobs with the following annual earnings: 1) 2004: met earning threshold for three quarters of coverage with two employers,4 totaling $3465.68; 2) 2005: met earning threshold for two quarters of coverage with four employers, totaling $2456.43; 3) 2006: met earning threshold for first three quarters of coverage with two employers, totaling $2972.43; 4) 2007: did not meet earning threshold for any quarter of coverage with one employer, totaling $207.25); 2008: none. (Tr. 240–41, 248–49). In a Work Activity Report dated May 1, 2008, a Social Security Agency reviewer noted that her work history looked "like a string of unsuccessful work attempts" which would be "[consistent with] symptoms shown by many [with] depression and borderline personality disorder—working fulltime for short periods, but then, leaving abruptly." (Tr. 266) (capitalization modified from original).

Prior to that, high school attendance records appear5 to show that: 1) in the 2001 to 2002 school year, Plaintiff had twenty-three excused absences, sixteen tardy arrivals, nine "HD" days, nine unexcused absences, and three days of suspension; 2) in the 2002 to 2003 school year, Plaintiff had eight excused absences, three tardy arrivals, one "HD" day, twelve illness-related absences, and four days marked "EXD"; and, 3) in the 2003 to 2004 school year, before Plaintiff withdrew on October 6, 2003, Plaintiff had one excused absence, one tardy arrival, twelve illness-related absences, and one day marked "EXD" out of a total possible twenty-five days of school. (Tr. 252–55).

A. Plaintiff's Self–Report and Testimony

In a function report dated May 1, 2008, Plaintiff reported that she would stop working at a job after a few weeks because she could not concentrate or focus and she just wanted to get out. (Tr. 275). In a subsequent function report dated May 13, 2008, she described her daily activities in the mental health facility which included attending the facilities programs during the day, attend Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings in the evening, return to take medications, read a book, and sleep. (Tr. 288). Plaintiff reported that she had visits with her son in addition to any other scheduled programs of the facility. (Tr. 288). Plaintiff reported that it was difficult to fall asleep and once asleep she does not want to get up. (Tr. 288). While at the facility, Plaintiff described that she prepares hotdogs, boxed and can foods once a week and that she takes turns with the other residents to prepare meals. (Tr. 289).

Plaintiff stated that she gets outside of the facility five times a week and walks or drives. (Tr. 290). Plaintiff reported that she shops once a week for thirty minutes in stores and indicated that she was able to count change and have a savings account, but unable to pay bills or use a checkbook. (Tr. 291). Plaintiff explained that since she did not have money, she didn't have any experience with paying bills or using checks. (Tr. 291). Plaintiff reported that her illness caused her to lose "interest in [her] sickness." (Tr. 291). Plaintiff reported that she engages in social activities and listed that through her mental health program and AA, she goes to daily meetings, groups, talks and hangs out. (Tr. 292). Plaintiff reported that she does not have any problems getting along with family, friends, bosses, teachers, police, or other people in general or other people in authority. (Tr. 292).

Plaintiff said that her illness made her talk too much. (Tr. 292). Plaintiff indicated that she had problems paying attention, explaining that she got lost in thought and was easily distracted. (Tr. 293). Plaintiff indicated that she could follow written instructions, however, she had difficulty following spoken directions and that she needed them repeated. (Tr. 293). Plaintiff reported that she had never lost a job due to problems getting along with people, that stress or changes in schedule mess up her entire day, and that she has to write things down in order to remember. (Tr. 294). At the time of completing the function reports, she lived at a mental health halfway house and stated that she planned to move into an apartment by July. (Tr. 285, 287).

In Social Security agency forms regarding recent medical treatment and current medications dated May 11, 2011, Plaintiff listed her treatment providers and wrote that she was currently working on getting Medicaid to pay for counseling. (Tr. 366). For list of medications, Plaintiff indicated "none at this time because no insurance." (Tr. 367).

In a hearing dated December 2, 2009, Plaintiff was not present and had a representative arrive on her behalf due to the fact that she was currently hospitalized. (Tr. 89).

In a hearing dated March 8, 2010, Plaintiff testified that she was not taking any of her medications because she recently moved from Pennsylvania to New York, in the process of getting Medicaid, and switching treatment facilities. (Tr. 74). Plaintiff testified that the last time she was medicated was last Tuesday, six days prior. (Tr. 81). Before she ran out of medication she was on: 200 milligrams of Lamictal

, 150 milligrams of Effexor, five milligrams of Ambien, 75 milligrams of Atarax, and 80 milligrams of Geodon twice a day. (Tr. 82). Plaintiff testified that when she was on the medications she was doing well, however, still reported that she had been unable to read or watch T.V., or engage in any activities that she enjoys for about four to five months. (Tr. 85). Plaintiff reported that when she grocery shops, it is as a family, that she did not socialize with any friends, just with her parents. (Tr. 85).

Plaintiff testified that as a result of a neglect charge, she is required to be supervised in the presence of her children. (Tr. 79). Plaintiff explained that the neglect charge stemmed from when she was taken off of medication and "went after [her] fiancé and [her] oldest son with a knife." (Tr. 80).

Plaintiff testified that from July 2008 through December 2008, she had lived with her mother. (Tr. 81). Plaintiff testified that since January she had been living with her fiancé and two children and that she is supervised by either her fiancé or her mother. (Tr. 79). When her fiancé is at work, her children go to daycare thirty hours a week, in part because she is not allowed to be with her children unsupervised, and because she cannot take care of the children full-time. (Tr. 79–80, 84). Plaintiff testified that she wakes up at 6:00 a.m. with her fiancé, helps get the children ready, then go together to drop the children at...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • United States v. Restitullo, 15-cr-00394 (WHW)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • October 18, 2016
  • Venosh v. Berryhill
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • September 19, 2018
    ...and a form builder. "Work history is a proper consideration in the [claimant's] credibility assessment." Voorhees v. Colvin, 215 F.Supp.3d 358, 383 (M.D.Pa. 2015) (citing Dobrowolsky v. Califano, 606 F.2d 403 (3d Cir.1979)). "The inferences drawn from a claimant's work history vary dependin......
  • De La Cruz v. Saul
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • November 16, 2020
    ...have acknowledged that noncompliance with treatment is especially prevalent among patients with bipolar disorder." Voorhees v. Colvin, 215 F. Supp. 3d 358, 381 (M.D. Pa. 2015) (citing cases). The ALJ relied heavily on De La Cruz's improvement when taking her medications and the negative eff......
  • Carolyn S. v. Saul
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • January 15, 2020
    ...a claimant's allegation of mental illness was contradicted by "behaving pretty normally during her office visits"); Voorhees v. Colvin, 215 F.Supp.3d 358, 385 (M.D.Pa. 2015) (criticizing an ALJ's rejection of mental illness allegations because the claimant "was noted to appear cooperative, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT