United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division
CLEVELAND B. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
MAC R.
MCCOY UNITED STATE MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Before
the Court is Plaintiff Cleveland Williams' Amended
Complaint (Doc. 14) filed on May 18, 2016. Plaintiff seeks
judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of
the Social Security Administration (“SSA”)
denying his claim for supplemental security income. The
Commissioner filed the Transcript of the proceedings
(hereinafter referred to as “Tr.” followed by the
appropriate page number), and the parties filed legal
memoranda in support of their positions. For the reasons set
out herein, the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED
pursuant to § 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42
U.S.C. § 405(g).
I.
Social Security Act Eligibility, the ALJ Decision, and
Standard of Review
A.
Eligibility
The law
defines disability as the inability to do any substantial
gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable
physical or mental impairment that can be expected to result
in death or that has lasted or can be expected to last for a
continuous period of not less than twelve months. 42 U.S.C.
§§ 416(i), 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A); 20 C.F.R.
§§ 404.1505, 416.905. The impairment must be
severe, making the claimant unable to do his previous work or
any other substantial gainful activity that exists in the
national economy. 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(2),
1382c(a)(3); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1505 - 404.1511,
416.905 - 416.911. Plaintiff bears the burden of persuasion
through step four, while the burden shifts to the
Commissioner at step five. Bowen v. Yuckert, 482
U.S. 137, 146 n.5 (1987).
B.
Procedural History
On
January 7, 2013, Plaintiff filed an application for
supplemental security income (“SSI”). (Tr. at 90,
155-160). Plaintiff asserted an onset date of August 30,
2012. (Id. at 155). Plaintiff's application was
denied initially on March 7, 2013, and on reconsideration on
April 29, 2013. (Id. at 90, 98). A hearing was held
before Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Denise
Pasvantis on January 23, 2015. (Id. at 29-56). The
ALJ issued an unfavorable decision on May 14, 2015. (Tr. at
12-21). The ALJ found Plaintiff not to be under a disability
since January 7, 2013, the date the application was filed.
(Id. at 20).
On
January 29, 2016, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's
request for review. (Id. at 1-7). Plaintiff filed a
Complaint (Doc. 1) in the United States District Court on
March 25, 2016 and an Amended Complaint (Doc. 7) On April 4,
2016. This case is ripe for review. The parties consented to
proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge for all
proceedings. (See Doc. 29).
C.
Summary of the ALJ's Decision
An ALJ
must follow a five-step sequential evaluation process to
determine if a claimant has proven that he is disabled.
Packer v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 542 F. App'x
890, 891 (11th Cir. 2013) (citing Jones v. Apfel,
190 F.3d 1224, 1228 (11th Cir. 1999)).[1] An ALJ must
determine whether the claimant: (1) is performing substantial
gainful activity; (2) has a severe impairment; (3) has a
severe impairment that meets or equals an impairment
specifically listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P,
Appendix 1; (4) can perform his past relevant work; and (5)
can perform other work of the sort found in the national
economy. Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232,
1237-40 (11th Cir. 2004). The claimant has the burden of
proof through step four and then the burden shifts to the
Commissioner at step five. Hines-Sharp v. Comm'r of
Soc. Sec., 511 F. App'x 913, 915 n.2 (11th Cir.
2013).
The ALJ
found that at step one of the sequential evaluation,
Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity
since January 7, 2013, the application date. (Tr. at 14). At
step two, the ALJ found that Plaintiff suffered from the
severe impairments of anatomic deformity at ¶ 5-S1 and
mild lumbar scoliosis (20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c)).
(Id.). At step three, the ALJ determined that
Plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of
impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of
one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P,
app. 1 (20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(d), 416.925, and
416.926). (Tr. at 15). At step four, the ALJ determined that
Plaintiff has the residual functional capacity
(“RFC”):
to lift and/or carry 50 pounds occasionally and 25 pounds
frequently; stand and/or walk for a total of six hours in an
eight[-]hour workday; sit for a total of six hours in an
eight[-]hour workday; push and/or pull unlimited, other than
as shown for lift and/or carry; and frequently climb ramps
and stairs, ladders, ropes, and scaffolds.
(Id.). The ALJ determined that Plaintiff has no past
relevant work. (Id. at 19). After consider
Plaintiff's age, education, work experience, and RFC, the
ALJ determined that there are jobs that exist in significant
numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff can perform.
(Id.). These jobs include cleaner, laundry worker,
and warehouse worker. (Id. at 20). The ALJ concluded
that Plaintiff was not under a disability from January 7,
2013, the application date. (Id.).
D.
Standard of Review
The
scope of this Court's review is limited to determining
whether the ALJ applied the correct legal standard,
McRoberts v. Bowen, 841 F.2d 1077, 1080 (11th Cir.
1988), and whether the findings are supported by substantial
evidence, Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 390
(1971). The Commissioner's findings of fact are
conclusive if supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C.
§405(g). Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla;
i.e., the evidence must do more than merely create a
suspicion of the existence of a fact, and must include such
relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as
adequate to support the conclusion. Foote v. Chater,
67 F.3d 1553, 1560 (11th Cir. 1995) (citing Walden v.
Schweiker, 672 F.2d 835, 838 (11th Cir. 1982);
Richardson, 402 U.S. at 401).
Where
the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial
evidence, the district court will affirm, even if the
reviewer would have reached a contrary result as finder of
fact, and even if the reviewer finds that “the evidence
preponderates against” the Commissioner's decision.
Edwards v. Sullivan, 937 F.2d 580, 584 n.3 (11th
Cir. 1991); Barnes v. Sullivan, 932 F.2d 1356, 1358
(11th Cir. 1991). The district court must view the evidence
as a whole, taking into account evidence favorable as well as
unfavorable to the decision. Foote, 67 F.3d at 1560;
accord Lowery v. Sullivan, 979 F.2d 835, 837 (11th
Cir. 1992) (court must scrutinize the entire record to
determine reasonableness of factual findings).
II.
Analysis
On
appeal, Plaintiff raises four issues. As stated by Plaintiff,
they are:
1) Whether the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) properly
assessed the Plaintiff's RFC given that she failed to
include as severe impairments or even as medically
determinable impairments the Plaintiff's chronic
headaches, right leg and knee pain, back pain, dizziness, and
pterygium; given that she did not address findings of the
State agency indicating that the Plaintiff could not perform
the full range of even sedentary work; given that she did not
include as severe impairments chronic low back pain, right
leg pain, and status-post back and right leg fractures
secondary to a motor vehicle accident as a pedestrian at the
age of seven, which were conclusively determined as severe in
a prior binding decision; and given that she did not consider
whether such impairments together with the Plaintiff's
acknowledged severe limitations would combine to preclude
Substantial Gainful Activity (SGA).
2) Whether the ALJ erred in not obtaining a Psychiatric
Review Technique Form (PRTF) and conducting a Mental Residual
Function Capacity (MRFC) assessment given there is evidence
in the record of Plaintiff's difficulties with insight,
attention/concentration, and stress.
3) Whether the Acting Commissioner met her burden of showing
that there is a significant number of jobs that exist in the
national economy which Plaintiff could perform given that the
ALJ failed to include any limitations related to the
Plaintiff's chronic headaches, right leg and knee pain,
back pain, dizziness, and pterygium in the hypothetical
question to the vocational expert (“VE”) and
given that in order for the VE's testimony to constitute
substantial evidence, the ALJ was required to pose a
hypothetical question, which comprised all of the
Plaintiff's limitations.
4) Whether the ALJ erred in not considering that Plaintiff
implicitly requested reopening the SSI case filed by the
Plaintiff on December 9, 2010, given that the new application
on January 7, 2013, was less than two years after the Initial
Determination on that prior application on February 4, 2011,
and given that good cause was shown by the furnishing of new
and material evidence relevant to the time period covered by
that prior application.
(Doc. 35 at 1-2). The Court will address each issue in turn.
A.
RFC Determination
Plaintiff
argues that the ALJ erred in dismissing Plaintiff's
chronic headaches, right leg and knee pain, and dizziness.
(Id. at 9). Further, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ
erred in failing to mention Plaintiff's right eye
pterygium (dry eye) and chronic back pain. (Id. at
9-10). Plaintiff claims that the ALJ erred in failing to
order a neurological workup for Plaintiff's dizziness and
failed to include all of Plaintiff's limitations in the
RFC. (Id. at 11). Plaintiff also argues that the ALJ
failed to address a State Agency finding that Plaintiff could
not perform his past relevant work and, thus, made an
implicit determination that Plaintiff's RFC was for less
than a full range of sedentary work. (Id. at 11-12).
In addition, Plaintiff argues that a prior decision by
Administrative Law Judge Steven Slahta decided on September
4, 2008 “conclusively determined” that Plaintiff
had the severe impairments of chronic low back pain, right
leg pain, and status-post back and right leg fractures
secondary to a motor vehicle accident as a pedestrian at the
age seven. (Id. at 12). Plaintiff contends these
findings are binding on the ALJ here. Finally, Plaintiff
argues that the ALJ's decision demonstrates bias as to
Plaintiff's failure to look for work. (Id. at
13). The Commissioner responds that substantial evidence
supports the ALJ's RFC determination. (Doc. 37 at 4). The
Court will discuss each issue raised by Plaintiff as to the
ALJ's RFC determination in turn.
1.
Consideration of Impairments
Plaintiff
argues that the ALJ dismissed Plaintiff's chronic
headaches, right leg and knee pain, and dizziness and failed
to mention or address Plaintiff's right eye pterygium and
chronic back pain. The Commissioner responds that the ALJ did
not find that Plaintiff's headaches, leg pain, knee pain,
pack pain, dizziness, and eye pterygium to be severe
impairments and found no evidence in the record to support
the claim that these impairments caused functional
limitations. (Doc. 37 at 5). Further, the Commissioner
contends that the ALJ specifically found that Plaintiff's
complaints for right leg and knee ...