Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Locklear v. Colvin

United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Southern Division

February 9, 2015

HELEN LOCKLEAR, Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION

KIMBERLY A. SWANK, Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the court on the parties' cross motions for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Helen Locklear ("Plaintiff") filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) seeking judicial review of the denial of her application for a period of disability, Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB"), and Social Security Income (SSI). The time for filing responsive briefs has expired, and the pending motions are ripe for adjudication. Having carefully reviewed the administrative record and the motions and memoranda submitted by the parties, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [DE-25] be granted, Defendants Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [DE-31] be denied, and the matter be remanded to the Commissioner for further consideration.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Plaintiff protectively filed an application for a period of disability, DIB, and SSI on August 31, 2010 (Tr. 86-87), alleging disability beginning August 9, 2009 (Tr. 205, 207).[1] The applications were denied initially and upon reconsideration, and a request for hearing was filed. (Tr. 86-87, 110-11, 145-49.) On July 23, 2012, a hearing was held before Administrative Law Judge Charles Woode ("ALJ"), who issued an unfavorable ruling on September 21, 2012. (Tr. 30, 36.) On January 28, 2014, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review. (Tr. 1.) Plaintiff now seeks judicial review of the final administrative decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

The scope of judicial review of a final agency decision denying disability benefits is limited to determining whether substantial evidence supports the Commissioner's factual findings and whether the decision was reached through the application of the correct legal standards. See Coffman v. Bowen, 829 F.2d 514, 517 (4th Cir. 1987). Substantial evidence is "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion; [i]t consists of more than a mere scintilla of evidence but may be somewhat less than a preponderance." Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir. 1996) (quoting Laws v. Celebrezze, 368 F.2d 640, 642 (4th Cir. 1966)) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (alteration in original). "In reviewing for substantial evidence, [the court should not] undertake to re-weigh conflicting evidence, make credibility determinations, or substitute [its] judgment for that of the [Commissioner]." Mastro v. Apfel, 270 F.3d 171, 176 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Craig, 76 F.3d at 589) (internal quotation marks omitted) (first and second alterations in original). Rather, in conducting the "substantial evidence" inquiry, the court determines whether the Commissioner has considered all relevant evidence and sufficiently explained the weight accorded to the evidence. Sterling Smokeless Coal Co. v. Akers, 131 F.3d 438, 439-40 (4th Cir. 1997).

II. Disability Determination

In making a disability determination, the Commissioner utilizes a five-step evaluation process. The Commissioner asks, sequentially, whether the claimant: (1) is engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) has a severe impairment; (3) has an impairment that meets or equals the requirements of an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, App. 1; (4) can perform the requirements of past work; and, if not, (5) based on the claimant's age, work experience, and residual functional capacity can adjust to other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520; Albright v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 174 F.3d 473, 475 n.2 (4th Cir. 1999). The burden of proof and production during the first four steps of the inquiry rests on the claimant. Pass v. Chater, 65 F.3d 1200, 1203 (4th Cir. 1995). At the fifth step, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show that other work exists in the national economy that the claimant can perform. Id .

When assessing the severity of mental impairments, the ALJ must do so in accordance with the "special technique" described in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520a(b)-(c) and 416.920a(b)-(c). This regulatory scheme identifies four broad functional areas in which the ALJ rates the degree of functional limitation resulting from a claimant's mental impairment(s): activities of daily living; social functioning; concentration, persistence or pace; and episodes of decompensation. Id . §§ 404.1520a(c)(3), 416.920a(c)(3). The ALJ is required to incorporate into his written decision pertinent findings and conclusions based on the "special technique." Id . §§ 404.1520a(e)(3), 416.920a(e)(3).

III. ALJ's Findings

Applying the five-step, sequential evaluation process, the ALJ found Plaintiff "not disabled" as defined in the Social Security Act. At step one, the ALJ found Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful employment since August 9, 2010. (Tr. 21.) Next, the ALJ determined Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: "obesity, possible spondylosis lumbar; sacroiliitis, bilateral; degenerative disc disease with low back pain; chronic pain syndrome; disc hernia/bulge, lumbar; disc hernia, bulge cervical; major depressive disorder, recurrent, moderate; panic disorder; degenerative arthritis left knee." (Tr. 21-22.) The ALJ also found that Plaintiff has the following non-severe impairments: "GERD, mild degenerative disc disease with low back pain;[2] cervical spondylosis without myelopathy C5-6; hypertension; PTSD; generalized anxiety disorder; fibromyalgia; opioid dependency; and peripheral neuropathy." (Tr. 22.) However, at step three, the ALJ concluded Plaintiff's impairments were not severe enough, either individually or in combination, to meet or medically equal one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. (Tr. 22-24.)

Prior to proceeding to step four, the ALJ assessed Plaintiff's residual functional capacity ("RFC") and found that Plaintiff had the ability to perform sedentary work but provided the following limitations:

The claimant can lift up to 10 pounds occasionally, stand or walk for approximately 2 hours of an 8-hour workday, and sit for approximately 6 hours of an 8-hour workday with normal breaks. The claimant is limited to no more than occasional stooping, crouching, balancing and climbing of ramps, stairs, ladders, ropes or scaffolds. The claimant should avoid concentrated exposure to hazards such as protected heights and dangerous machinery.

(Tr. 24.) In making this assessment, the ALJ found Plaintiff's statements about the severity of her symptoms not fully credible. (Tr. 25.) At step four, the ALJ concluded Plaintiff did not have the RFC to perform the requirements of her past relevant work. (Tr. 28.) Nonetheless, at step five, upon considering Plaintiff's age, education, work experience and RFC, the ALJ determined Plaintiff is capable of adjusting to the demands of other employment opportunities that exist in significant numbers in the national and state economies. (Tr. 29.)

IV. Plaintiff's Contentions

Plaintiff challenges the Commissioner's final decision denying benefits on numerous grounds. Plaintiff first contends that the ALJ erred in his evaluation of Plaintiff's credibility. Second, Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ's analysis of the medical opinions of record is not supported by substantial evidence. Third, Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred in not accounting for Plaintiff's severe mental impairments in the RFC. Lastly, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred by making medical determinations beyond his scope of authority.

A. Plaintiff's Credibility

Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ erred in his credibility analysis by failing to consider additional reasons for Plaintiff's non-compliance with treatment, in finding that Plaintiff misrepresented when she last worked, and in requiring that Plaintiff present objective evidence of her pain. In assessing a claimant's credibility, the ALJ must follow a two-step process. First, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant's medically determinable impairments could reasonably cause the alleged symptoms. Craig, 76 F.3d at 594-95. Next, the ALJ must evaluate the credibility of the claimant's statements regarding those symptoms. Id. at 595. The Social Security regulations require that an ALJ's decision "contain specific reasons for the finding on credibility, supported by the evidence in the case record, and... be sufficiently specific to make clear to the individual and to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the individual's statements and the reasons for that weight." SSR 96-7p, 1996 WL 374186, at *2 (July 2, 1996).

In determining the credibility of the individual's statements, the adjudicator must consider the entire case record, including the objective medical evidence, the individual's own statements about symptoms, statements and other information provided by treating or examining physicians or psychologists and other persons about the symptoms and how they affect the individual, and any other relevant evidence in the case record.

SSR 96-7p, 1996 WL 374186, at *1. The ALJ must consider the following factors in addition to objective medical evidence when assessing the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.