Source: http://co.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190321_0000349.DCO.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-05-31 16:56:47
Document Index: 117536062

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 401', '§ 405', '§ 404', 'art, 357', '§ 404', '§ 404', 'art, 431', '§ 12', '§ 12']

FindACase™ | Berzins v. Berryhill
Berzins v. Berryhill
ANDIS DAVIS BERZINS, Plaintiff,
This matter is before the Court[1] on the Social Security Administrative Record [#12], [2] filed January 12, 2018, in support of Plaintiff's Complaint [#2] seeking review of the decision of Defendant Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, (“Defendant” or “Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff's claim for disability insurance benefits pursuant to Title II of the Social Security Act (the “Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 401 et seq. On February 21, 2018, Plaintiff filed an Opening Brief [#18] (the “Brief”). Defendant filed a Response [#19] in opposition, and Plaintiff filed a Reply [#22]. The Court has jurisdiction to review the Commissioner's final decision under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c). The Court has reviewed the entire case file and the applicable law and is sufficiently advised in the premises. For the reasons set forth below, the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff alleges that he became disabled on May 1, 2013. Tr. 18.[3] On July 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed applications for disability and disability insurance benefits pursuant to Title II. Tr. 18. On May 29, 2015, an Administrative Law Judge (the “ALJ”) issued an unfavorable decision. Tr. 26.
The ALJ determined that Plaintiff met the insured status requirements of the Act through December 31, 2016, and that Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity (“SGA”) from his alleged onset date of May 1, 2013. Tr. 20. The ALJ found that Plaintiff suffers from three severe impairments: (1) depressive disorder, (2) anxiety disorder, and (3) chronic hip pain. Tr. 20. However, the ALJ also found that these impairments, individually or in combination, do not meet or medically equal “the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. § Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1 (20 C.F.R. 404.1520(d), 404.1525 and 404.1526).” Tr. 20. The ALJ next concluded that Plaintiff has the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform work at a light exertional level with the following limitations:
[H]e cannot climb ladders or stairs; he can occasionally stoop, kneel, crouch and crawl; and he cannot perform work that involves contact with the general public or more than occasional contact with co-workers and supervisors.
Tr. 21. Based on the RFC and the testimony of an impartial vocational expert (“VE”), the ALJ found that Plaintiff was able to perform his past relevant work as a software analyst. Tr. 71-72. He therefore found Plaintiff not disabled at step four of the sequential evaluation. Tr. 25-26. The ALJ's decision has become the final decision of the Commissioner for purposes of judicial review. 20 C.F.R. § 404.981.
Step one requires the ALJ to determine whether a claimant is “presently engaged in substantial gainful activity.” Wall, 561 F.3d at 1052 (quoting Allen v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1140, 1142 (10th Cir. 2004)). If not, the ALJ considers at step two whether a claimant has “a medically severe impairment or impairments.” Id. “An impairment is severe under the applicable regulations if it significantly limits a claimant's physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities.” Id. 1052 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521). Next, at step three, the ALJ considers whether a claimant's medically severe impairments are equivalent to a condition “listed in the appendix of the relevant disability regulation, ” i.e., the “Listings.” Wall, 561 F.3d at 1052 (quoting Allen, 357 F.3d at 1142). “If a claimant's impairments are not equivalent to a listed impairment, the ALJ must consider, at step four, whether a claimant's impairments prevent [him or her] from performing [his or her] past relevant work.” Wall, 561 F.3d at 1052 (citing Allen, 357 F.3d at 1142). “Even if a claimant is so impaired, the agency considers, at step five, whether [he or she] possesses the sufficient [RFC] to perform other work in the national economy.” Id.
Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ erred in two primary ways. First, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ improperly found that Plaintiff's anxiety did not meet Listing 12.06. Brief [#18] at 3. Second, Plaintiff argues that the RFC formulated by the ALJ is not supported by substantial evidence of the record. Id.
A. Step Three: Listing 12.06
“At the third step, we [will] consider the medical severity of your impairment(s). If you have an impairment(s) that meets or equals one of our listings in appendix I of this subpart and meets the duration requirement, we will find that you are disabled.” Gallegos v. Colvin, 646 Fed.Appx. 613, 615 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii)). In other words, “[s]tep three asks whether any medically severe impairment, alone or in combination with other impairments, is equivalent to any of a number of listed impairments so severe as to preclude substantial gainful employment.” Gallegos, 646 Fed.Appx. at 615-616 (quoting Fischer-Ross v. Barnhart, 431 F.3d 729, 731 (10th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
“To meet Listing 12.06 for anxiety related disorders, the claimant must establish that he meets the criteria of subsections A and B, or A and C.” Gallegos, 646 Fed.Appx. at 616 (citing 20 C.F.R. 404, Subpt. P, App. I, § 12.06). Plaintiff asserts that he met the criteria of subsections A and B, see Brief [#18] at 12, and thus the Court need not examine subsection C here. See 20 C.F.R. 404, Subpt. P, App. I, § 12.06. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that the evidence supports the following findings sufficient to meet the requirements of Listing 12.06:
1. Generalized persistent anxiety accompanied by three out of four of the ...