Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00179/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00179-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael J. Astrue
Defendant
Sheryll W. Hall
Plaintiff

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SHERYLL W. HALL, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CA 07-0179-C

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, :

Commissioner of Social Security,

:

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §405(g), seeking

judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security

denying her claim for disability insurance benefits. The parties have consented

to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(c), for all proceedings in this Court. (See Docs. 13 & 16 (“In accordance

with provisions of 28 U.S.C. 636(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73, the parties in this

case consent to have a United States Magistrate Judge conduct any and all

proceedings in this case . . . order the entry of a final judgment, and conduct

all post-judgment proceedings.”)) Upon consideration of the administrative

record, plaintiff's proposed report and recommendation, the Commissioner's

Case 1:07-cv-00179-C Document 19 Filed 11/08/07 Page 1 of 12
1 Any appeal taken from this memorandum opinion and order and judgment shall

be made to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. (See Docs. 13 & 16 (“An appeal from a

judgment entered by a Magistrate Judge shall be taken directly to the United States Court of

Appeals for this judicial circuit in the same manner as an appeal from any other judgment of this

district court.”))

2

proposed report and recommendation, and the parties' arguments at the

October 31, 2007 hearing before the Court, it is determined that the

Commissioner's decision denying benefits should be reversed and remanded

for further proceedings not inconsistent with this decision.1

Plaintiff alleges disability due to right trigeminal neuralgia,

degenerative disc disease of the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spines, right

carpal tunnel syndrome, possible right ulnar nerve entrapment, peripheral

neuropathy, and Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome/familial hypermobility syndrome.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) made the following relevant findings:

3. The claimant has the following severe impairments:

carpal tunnel syndrome, trigeminal neuralgia, facial pain,

back pain, and peripheral neuropathy (20 CFR 404.1520(c)).

4. The claimant does not have an impairment or

combination of impairments that meets or medically equals

one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart

P, Appendix 1 (20 CFR 404.1520(d), 404.1525 and 404.1526).

5. After careful consideration of the entire record, the

undersigned finds that the claimant has the residual

functional capacity to perform light work activity on a

sustained basis. Specifically, the claimant can occasionally

lift/carry 20 pounds, frequently lift/carry 10 pounds,

Case 1:07-cv-00179-C Document 19 Filed 11/08/07 Page 2 of 12
3

stand/walk for about 6 hours of an 8-hour workday and sit

for 6 hours of an 8-hour workday and should avoid

concentrated exposure to extreme cold, extreme heat, noise,

and fumes, odors, dusts, gases, poor ventilation, etc.

...

6. The claimant is capable of performing past relevant

work as [a] nurse. This work does not require the

performance of work-related activities precluded by the

claimant’s residual functional capacity (20 CFR 404.1565).

In comparing the claimant’s residual functional capacity with

the physical and mental demands of this work, the undersigned

finds that the claimant is able to perform it as actually

performed.

7. The claimant has not been under a “disability,” as

defined in the Social Security Act, from March 3, 2004

through the date of this decision (20 CFR 404.1520(f)). 

(Tr. 25 & 30-31 (emphasis in original)) The Appeals Council affirmed the

ALJ's decision (Tr. 5-7) and thus, the hearing decision became the final

decision of the Commissioner of Social Security.

DISCUSSION

In all Social Security cases, the claimant bears the burden of proving

that she is unable to perform her previous work. Jones v. Bowen, 810 F.2d

1001 (11th Cir. 1986). In evaluating whether the claimant has met this burden,

the examiner must consider the following four factors: (1) objective medical

facts and clinical findings; (2) diagnoses of examining physicians; (3) evidence

Case 1:07-cv-00179-C Document 19 Filed 11/08/07 Page 3 of 12
4

of pain; and (4) the claimant's age, education and work history. Id. at 1005.

Once the claimant meets this burden, it becomes the Commissioner's burden

to prove that the claimant is capable, given her age, education and work

history, of engaging in another kind of substantial gainful employment which

exists in the national economy. Sryock v. Heckler, 764 F.2d 834, 836 (11th

Cir. 1985).

The task for the Magistrate Judge is to determine whether the

Commissioner's decision to deny claimant benefits, on the basis that she can

perform her past relevant work as a nurse, is supported by substantial

evidence. Substantial evidence is defined as more than a scintilla and means

such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to

support a conclusion. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 28

L.Ed.2d 842 (1971). "In determining whether substantial evidence exists, we

must view the record as a whole, taking into account evidence favorable as

well as unfavorable to the [Commissioner's] decision." Chester v. Bowen, 792

F.2d 129, 131 (11th Cir. 1986).

Although the claimant bears the burden of demonstrating the inability

to return to her past relevant work, the Commissioner of Social Security has

an obligation to develop a full and fair record. Schnorr v. Bowen, 816 F.2d

Case 1:07-cv-00179-C Document 19 Filed 11/08/07 Page 4 of 12
2 As recognized in the ruling, use of this test is likely to be “fallacious and

insupportable” because “[w]hile ‘delivery jobs,’ ‘packaging jobs,’ etc., may have a common

characteristic, they often involve quite different functional demands and duties requiring varying

abilities and job knowledge.”

3 The Dictionary of Occupational Titles' descriptions can be relied upon to define

the job as it is usually performed in the national economy.

5

578, 581 (11th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted). Social Security Ruling 82-61

recognizes three possible tests for determining whether or not a claimant

retains the capacity to perform her past relevant work. They are as follows:

1. Whether the claimant retains the capacity

to perform a past relevant job based on a broad

generic, occupational classification of that job,

e.g., "delivery job," "packaging job," etc.2

 

 

 2. Whether the claimant retains the capacity

to perform the particular functional demands and

job duties peculiar to an individual job as he or

she actually performed it. 

3. Whether the claimant retains the capacity

to perform the functional demands and job duties

of the job as ordinarily required by employers

throughout the national economy.3

Under § 404.1520(e) of the Commissioner's regulations, a claimant will be

found to be "not disabled" when it is determined that she retains the residual

functional capacity to perform the actual functional demands and job duties of

a particular past relevant job or the functional demands and job duties of the

occupation as generally required by employers throughout the national

Case 1:07-cv-00179-C Document 19 Filed 11/08/07 Page 5 of 12
6

economy. SSR 82-61.

In this case, the ALJ has relied upon test two above to determine that

the claimant can perform her past relevant work as a nurse. (Tr. 30 (“The

claimant is capable of performing past relevant work as [a] nurse. . . . In

comparing the claimant’s residual functional capacity with the physical and

mental demands of this work, the undersigned finds that the claimant is able

to perform it as actually performed.”)) 

Section 404.1520(e) of the Commissioner's regulations requires a

review and consideration of a plaintiff's residual functional capacity and the

physical and mental demands of the past work before a determination can be

made that the plaintiff can perform her past relevant work. Social Security

Ruling 82-62 provides that evaluation under § 404.1520(e) "requires careful

consideration of the interaction of the limiting effects of the person's

impairment(s) and the physical and mental demands of . . . her PRW to

determine whether the individual can still do that work." See also Lucas v.

Sullivan, 918 F.2d 1567, 1574 n.3 (11th Cir. 1990) (to support a conclusion

that a claimant "is able to return to her past work, the ALJ must consider all

the duties of that work and evaluate her ability to perform them in spite of her

impairments").

Case 1:07-cv-00179-C Document 19 Filed 11/08/07 Page 6 of 12
7

The RFC to meet the physical and mental demands of jobs a

claimant has performed in the past (either the specific job a

claimant performed or the same kind of work as it is customarily

performed throughout the economy) is generally a sufficient

basis for a finding of "not disabled." 

 

...

The decision as to whether the claimant retains the functional

capacity to perform past work which has current relevance has

far-reaching implications and must be developed and explained

fully in the disability decision. Since this is an important and,

in some instances, a controlling issue, every effort must be made

to secure evidence that resolves the issue as clearly and

explicitly as circumstances permit. 

Sufficient documentation will be obtained to support the

decision. Any case requiring consideration of PRW will contain

enough information on past work to permit a decision as to the

individual's ability to return to such past work (or to do other

work). Adequate documentation of past work includes factual

information about those work demands which have a bearing on

the medically established limitations. Detailed information

about strength, endurance, manipulative ability, mental demands

and other job requirements must be obtained as appropriate.

This information will be derived from a detailed description of

the work obtained from the claimant, employer, or other

informed source. Information concerning job titles, dates work

was performed, rate of compensation, tools and machines used,

knowledge required, the extent of supervision and independent

judgment required, and a description of tasks and

responsibilities will permit a judgment as to the skill level and

the current relevance of the individual's work experience.

SSR 82-62. In finding that a claimant has the capacity to perform a past

relevant job, the decision of the Commissioner must contain among the

Case 1:07-cv-00179-C Document 19 Filed 11/08/07 Page 7 of 12
4 Compare Tr. 25 (“[T]he undersigned finds that the claimant has the residual

functional capacity to perform light work activity on a sustained basis. Specifically, the

claimant can occasionally lift/carry 20 pounds, frequently lift/carry 10 pounds, stand/walk

for about 6 hours of an 8-hour workday and sit for 6 hours of an 8-hour workday and

8

findings, a finding of fact as to the claimant's residual functional capacity, a

finding of fact as to the physical and mental demands of the past

job/occupation, and a finding of fact that the claimant's residual functional

capacity would permit a return to the past job or occupation. Id.

In this case, the plaintiff contends that the ALJ committed the following

errors: (1) he erred in rejecting the evidence from Dr. Todd Elmore, a treating

neurologist; (2) he improperly evaluated plaintiff’s credibility; and (3) in

improperly determining her residual functional capacity (“RFC”) he

improperly concluded that she can perform her PRW as a nurse as actually

performed. Because the Court finds that the ALJ erred in determining that

plaintiff retains the RFC to perform light work and, therefore, that she can

perform her past work as a nurse as she performed it, the other assignments of

error raised by plaintiff are not discussed. See Pendley v. Heckler, 767 F.2d

1561, 1563 (11th Cir. 1985) (“Because the ‘misuse of the expert’s testimony

alone warrants a reversal,’ we do not consider the appellant’s other claims.”).

In determining that Hall retains the residual functional capacity to

perform the requirements of light work activity,4

 it is clear to the Court that the

Case 1:07-cv-00179-C Document 19 Filed 11/08/07 Page 8 of 12
should avoid concentrated exposure to extreme cold, extreme heat, noise, and fumes, odors,

dusts, gases, poor ventilation, etc.”) with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(b) (2007) (“Light work

involves lifting no more than 20 pounds at a time with frequent lifting or carrying of objects

weighing up to 10 pounds. Even though the weight lifted may be very little, a job is in this

category when it requires a good deal of walking or standing, or when it involves sitting most of

the time with some pushing and pulling of arm or leg controls. To be considered capable of

performing a full or wide range of light work, you must have the ability to do substantially all of

these activities.”).

9

ALJ relied solely upon a PCE completed by a non-examining DDS disability

examiner, Cheryl Jones (compare Tr. 258-265 (while Jones’ electronic

signature appears on the medical consultant’s signature line, that line contains

no consultant’s code or anything else designating her as a physician) with, e.g.,

Tr. 119 (form identifying Jones as a DDS disability specialist)), the findings

on that form matching up exactly with the RFC findings made by the ALJ

(compare Tr. 259 & 262 (Jones noted on the form that Hall can occasionally

lift and carry up to 20 pounds, frequently lift and carry up to 10 pounds, stand

and/or walk about 6 hours in an 8-hour workday, sit about 6 hours in an 8-hour

workday, and should avoid concentrated exposure to extreme cold, extreme

heat, noise, and fumes, odors, dusts, gases, poor ventilation, etc.) with Tr. 25

(“After careful consideration of the entire record, the undersigned finds

that the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform light

work activity on a sustained basis. Specifically, the claimant can

occasionally lift/carry 20 pounds, frequently lift/carry 10 pounds,

Case 1:07-cv-00179-C Document 19 Filed 11/08/07 Page 9 of 12
5 This Court is of the opinion that the RFC determination of the non-examining,

non-physician DDS disability specialist in this case would be entitled to absolutely no weight. 

6 Reliance upon a form completed by a disability examiner is clear error which

must be corrected on remand.

10

stand/walk for about 6 hours of an 8-hour workday and sit for 6 hours of

an 8-hour workday and should avoid concentrated exposure to extreme

cold, extreme heat, noise, and fumes, odors, dusts, gases, poor ventilation,

etc.”)). The RFC form completed by the disability examiner simply does not

supply the substantial evidence needed to support the ALJ’s determination that

Hall can perform the physical requirements of light work activity, cf. Lamb v.

Bowen, 847 F.2d 698, 703 (11th Cir. 1988) (“The reports of reviewing

nonexamining physicians do not constitute substantial evidence on which to

base an administrative decision. . . . ‘The opinions of nonexamining, reviewing

physicians, when contrary to those of examining physicians are entitled to little

weight in a disability case, and standing alone, do not constitute substantial

evidence.’”),5

 particularly considering that the remaining evidence of record

establishes that plaintiff cannot perform the prolonged standing and walking

required for light work.6

 In this regard, not only did plaintiff’s treating

physician, Dr. Elmore, indicate that Hall’s ability to stand for prolonged

periods of time is impaired (Tr. 452) but, in addition, one of the consultative

Case 1:07-cv-00179-C Document 19 Filed 11/08/07 Page 10 of 12
7 In addition, the evidence of record suggests that plaintiff does not retain the

ability to perform another specific duty of her past job as a nurse, that is, the requirement that she

handwrite notes. Plaintiff testified that she did a lot of writing as a nurse (Tr. 466) and Dr.

Rubenstein specifically noted that Hall had “some manipulative limitations with prolonged

writing[.]” (Tr. 238) 

Perhaps the ALJ would have been more cognizant of the standing/walking and

handwriting issues had he made a finding of fact regarding the physical and mental demands of

11

examining physicians, Dr. Howard Rubenstein, also placed limitations on

plaintiff’s ability to walk and stand (Tr. 238 (“The claimant could be expected

to stand up to 30 minutes at a time and can be expected to ambulate up to a

city block at a time.”)). Based upon the standing and walking limitations noted

by Drs. Elmore and Rubenstein, not only would plaintiff be unable to perform

the standing and walking requirements of the full range of light work but, as

well, could not perform the standing and walking requirements of her past

work as a nurse as she actually performed that job (compare Tr. 466

(plaintiff’s testimony that her work in the clinic required her to stand and walk

most of the time) with Tr. 159 (“RN: standing/walking; pushing medication

carts while administering medications, monitoring patients’ condition[s] and

in responding to patient emergencies; occasionally moved, restrained, or rolled

patients; had to hand write nurse’s notes; processed doctor’s orders; attended

meetings; acted as a clinic nurse with doctor necessitating standing/walking;

completed reports/documentation.”)).7

Case 1:07-cv-00179-C Document 19 Filed 11/08/07 Page 11 of 12
plaintiff’s past work as a nurse as required by SSR 82-62. This failure is but another reason why

this case need to remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings. 

12

In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that there is no substantial

evidence in the record which supports the ALJ’s determination that plaintiff

can perform the physical demands of light work and, therefore, no substantial

support for the determination that plaintiff is capable of performing her past

relevant work as a nurse as she actually performed that job. 

CONCLUSION

The Court ORDERS that the decision of the Commissioner of Social

Security denying plaintiff benefits be reversed and remanded pursuant to

sentence four of § 405(g), see Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 111 S.Ct.

2157, 115 L.Ed.2d 78 (1991), for further proceedings not inconsistent with this

decision. The remand pursuant to sentence four of § 405(g) makes the plaintiff

a prevailing party for purposes of the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C.

§ 2412, Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 113 S.Ct. 2625, 125 L.Ed.2d 239

(1993), and terminates this Court’s jurisdiction over this matter.

DONE and ORDERED this the 7th day of November, 2007.

s/WILLIAM E. CASSADY 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00179-C Document 19 Filed 11/08/07 Page 12 of 12