Waterman v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
| Decision Date | 30 January 2017 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2:16-cv-059 |
| Parties | Crystal Gail Waterman, Plaintiff, v. Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio |
Plaintiff, Crystal Gail Waterman, filed this action seeking review of a decision of the Commissioner of Social Security partially denying her applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Those applications were filed on May 4, 2011, and alleged that Plaintiff became disabled on December 18, 2002.
After initial administrative denials of her claim, Plaintiff was given a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge on June 25, 2013, and a supplemental hearing on August 15, 2014. In a decision dated August 28, 2014, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff became disabled on April 1, 2013, but not before, and denied her application for disability insurance benefits because her insured status expired on December 31, 2007. However, her application for supplemental security income was granted effective on April 1, 2013. That became the Commissioner's final decision on November 24, 2015, when the Appeals Council denied review.
After Plaintiff filed this case, the Commissioner filed the administrative record on May 9, 2016. Plaintiff filed a statement of errors on August 25, 2016, to which the Commissioner responded on December 12, 2016. Plaintiff filed a reply brief on January 17, 2017, and the case is now ready to decide.
Plaintiff, who was 36 years old as of the date of the first administrative hearing and who has a high school education with two years of trade school, testified as follows. Her testimony appears at pages 56-87 of the administrative record. She testified only at the first hearing.
At that hearing, Plaintiff described her recent work activity. She had worked at a pizza shop in 2010 and 2011 doing sandwich prep and cashier work, but her eyesight got so bad she could no longer do that job. In 2003 she did some collections and customer service work, and she had also worked briefly at a grocery store and as an account manager at Rent-A-Center. She also left the customer service job due to vision problems.
When asked why she could not work, Plaintiff said that she could neither sit nor stand for long periods of time, got migraine headaches twice a week, and could not concentrate due to floaters and flashing lights in her eyes. The problems with eyesight and migraines existed prior to 2007. She had had two surgeries in each eye and was also receiving steroid injections every six months. Her eyes were puffy for a week afterwards and she also had headaches and increased eye pressure. She could not sit at a computer.
Plaintiff also testified that she had muscle spasms in her back and neck. Medication reduced the pain but did not eliminate it. She had also been having issues with periodic swelling in her knees and sharp pains in her hips, which were treated with a cortisone shot.
Counsel asked Plaintiff to estimate how long she could sit, stand, and walk during an eight-hour work day. She said that she could sit for three hours with the need to stand up and walkaround every twenty minutes, could stand for four hours with a need to change positions every fifteen minutes, and could lift a gallon of milk occasionally.
During the day, Plaintiff tried to avoid going outside because of the sunlight. She took care of her son and napped. She was able to attend her son's baseball games by wearing sunglasses and sitting under a canopy. She did laundry with help from her son and did some light cooking. Vacuuming was difficult. She visited with her parents but had no close friends. She could read regular print if she wore reading glasses.
The pertinent medical records are found beginning at page 378 of the administrative record. The Court will summarize only those records which relate to Plaintiff's statements of error.
The primary issue raised by Plaintiff is the sufficiency of the interrogatory answers given by Dr. Richards, whom the ALJ sent interrogatories to after the first hearing. In his initial responses (Tr. 1005-1011), Dr. Richards said that no clear listing was met due to limited and incomplete records. He said, however, that there were "significant unresolved medical conditions which potentially could meet or equal a Listing." Some issues he identified were the unreadable records relating to Plaintiff's vison condition, although he noted that "there was is significant visual impairment present." He thought that a summary of her visual fields and acuity in "steady state" would be important. In his view, "added medical evidence and comprehensive evaluation would be necessary to go beyond this point." Finally, his notes indicate concern with Plaintiff's uveitis (pars planitis) with a 2001 onset, stating that the records documented "multiple medical encounters" and "many functional complaints" of disturbed vision and discomfort.
Additional records were then provided, including a summary from Plaintiff's treating opthalmologist, Dr. Opremcak. That summary (Tr. 1020) stated that he had been treating Plaintiff since 2001 for bilateral intermediate uveitis; that she had been treated with periocular corticosteroid injections; that although they controlled her uveitis, she had "frequent recurrences of her ocular inflammation bilaterally"; that she had surgery, which did not resolve the uveitis; and that she had recently been diagnosed with MS, which is a very common cause of her visual condition.
In his further evaluation, Dr. Richards considered a different report (records from Dr. Bauerie) documenting the diagnosis of remitting relapsing multiple sclerosis, and concluded that Plaintiff's impairment equaled section 11.09 of the Listing of Impairments (which deals with MS). He stated that the onset date was difficult to establish because various records showed a lack of symptoms at times and because she had also been sporadically employed after her alleged onset date. With those reservations, he settled on an onset date of April 1, 2013 because the signs and symptoms he needed to find that she had a Listing-level impairment were "difficult to establish prior to April 2013." (Tr. 1021-23).
Finally, as Plaintiff points out, there are records from her opthalmologist dating from prior to the expiration of her insured status. Those records (Tr. 693-711) show that prior to and during 2007 she was being treated for uveitis and pars planitis, and that her symptoms included sharp pain in the eyes, floaters, and photophobia. Her visual acuity was variable. She was treated with steroids, which provided some relief.
Vocational experts testified at both administrative hearings. At the first hearing, Nancy Shapero was the expert, and her testimony begins at page 81 of the record. Sheidentified Plaintiff's past work as a clerk, a customer service representative, a deli worker, a hotel desk clerk, and an auto parts delivery person. All of these are unskilled jobs and are typically performed at the light exertional level. Ms. Shapero was then asked questions about a hypothetical person who could do light work with some restrictions, could read with 3.0 magnification reading glasses, and could perform simple, repetitive tasks. She said that such a person could do Plaintiff's past work as a deli clerk, desk clerk, or customer service representative. A limitation on exposure to fluorescent light would eliminate those jobs, but janitorial jobs would remain.
Next, Ms. Shapero was asked how a requirement of a sit/stand option would affect the person's ability to work. If the option could be accommodated during normal breaks, it would not affect the person's ability to do Plaintiff's past work. If it required more flexibility, with a break from standing once an hour for five to ten minutes while remaining on task, the past jobs could not be done, but the person could be a price marker, hand packer, or assembler. Lastly, she testified that a person off task for 20% of the time could not do any of those jobs, nor could a person missing two days of work per month.
At the second administrative hearing, a different expert, Casey Vass, gave some additional vocational testimony. His testimony appears beginning at page 45 of the record. He first testified that someone off task more than 10% of the day would not likely be employable. The same would be true of someone who missed more than 18 days of work per year, or who took a week off every three months. Finally, Mr. Vass said that an employee is generally expected to have continuous use of his or eyes in the work place.
The Administrative Law Judge's decision appears at pages 13-28 of the administrative record. The important findings in that decision are as follows.
The Administrative Law Judge found, first, that Plaintiff met the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act through December 31, 2007. Second, she found that Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since her alleged onset date. Going to the next step of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ concluded that since her alleged onset date, Plaintiff had severe impairments including degenerative disc disease of the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine, uveitis with pars planitis, and osteoporosis. After April 1, 2013, Plaintiff also suffered from remitting relapsing multiple sclerosis. The ALJ also found that these impairments did not, prior to April 1, 2013, meet or equal the requirements of any section of the Listing of Impairments (20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1), but they did so after that date.
Moving to the next step of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ found that prior to her disability date, Plaintiff could work at the light...
To continue reading
Request your trial