Source: http://fl.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20191112_0003535.MFL.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-05-27 04:00:31
Document Index: 27212143

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 405', '§ 404', '§ 404', 'art 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 416', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404']

FindACase™ | Haynes v. Commissioner of Social Security
Haynes v. Commissioner of Social Security
CLEF D. HAYNES, SR., Plaintiff,
MARK A. PIZZO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
This is an appeal of the administrative denial of supplemental security income (SSI) and disability insurance benefits (DIB). See 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3). Plaintiff argues the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) erred in formulating Plaintiff's residual functional capacity (RFC) and should have either re-contacted his treating physician or ordered a consultative examination. After considering Plaintiff's arguments, Defendant's response, and the administrative record, I find the ALJ applied the proper standards, and the decision that Plaintiff is not disabled is supported by substantial evidence (docs. 16, 17). I affirm the ALJ's decision.
Plaintiff Clef Haynes was born on July 9, 1958. He was 56 years old on his alleged disability onset date of September 14, 2014, with a high school education and a year and a half of community college. Plaintiff's 42-year work history includes past jobs as a shipping supervisor (from 1995 to 2001) and an inventory supervisor (from 2002 through 2014). (R. 35) At the time of the hearing, Plaintiff was living at home with his mother. As he explained, “[s]he's 88 years old, and I initially moved in with her before my diagnosis. I was working out of Texas and she had a stroke and there was nobody in the house so I moved in with her and to take care of her. And now it's almost reversed, she's taking care of me. So she does the bulk of the cooking, only when she wants to.” (R. 41)
Plaintiff alleges disability due to diabetes and hypertension and testified these impairments cause him back pain, neck pain, neuropathy in his feet and hands, blurred vision, and fatigue. After a hearing, the ALJ found Plaintiff suffers from a more extensive list of severe impairments: “diabetes mellitus; cervical degenerative disc disease with radiculopathy; narrowing at the C5-6 level with anterior spondylosis; minimal loss of vertebral height at the L1 and L2 levels; hypertension; cardiomyopathy; peripheral vascular disease with occlusion of the mid through distal right superficial femoral artery; and obesity.” (R. 12) Aided by the testimony of a vocational expert (VE), the ALJ determined Plaintiff is not disabled as he has the RFC to perform light work:
He can lift up to 20 pounds occasionally and lift or carry 10 pounds frequently. He can stand or walk for approximately 6 hours and sit for approximately 6 hours, in an 8-hour workday with normal breaks. He can frequently climb ladders, ropes, scaffolds, ramps or stairs, balance, stoop, crouch, kneel or crawl.
(R. 13) The ALJ found that, with this RFC, Plaintiff could perform his past relevant work as a stock control supervisor as that job is performed in the national economy (but not as Plaintiff actually performed it). (R. 18) The Appeals Council denied review. Plaintiff, who has exhausted his administrative remedies, filed this action.
The Social Security Administration, to regularize the adjudicative process, promulgated detailed regulations that are currently in effect. These regulations establish a “sequential evaluation process” to determine whether a claimant is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. If an individual is found disabled at any point in the sequential review, further inquiry is unnecessary. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4). Under this process, the Commissioner must determine, in sequence, the following: (1) whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment(s) (i.e., one that significantly limits his ability to perform work-related functions); (3) whether the severe impairment meets or equals the medical criteria of Appendix 1, 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P; (4) considering the Commissioner's determination of claimant's RFC, whether the claimant can perform his past relevant work; and (5) if the claimant cannot perform the tasks required of his prior work, the ALJ must decide if the claimant can do other work in the national economy in view of his RFC, age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4). A claimant is entitled to benefits only if unable to perform other work. See Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 142 (1987); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f), (g); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(f), (g).
Plaintiff argues the ALJ's RFC is not supported by substantial evidence, because the ALJ relied on an outdated opinion from a non-examining state agency physician. According to Plaintiff, the ALJ should have re-contacted one of his treating physicians for a more recent opinion or ordered an updated consultative examination. The Commissioner objects, stating there is no need for additional medical opinions because substantial evidence supports the ALJ's determination that Plaintiff retains the RFC for light work.
A claimant's RFC is the most work he can do despite any limitations caused by his impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1); 416.945(a)(1). In formulating a claimant's RFC, the ALJ must consider all impairments and the extent to which the impairments are consistent with medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(2), (e); 416.945(a)(2), (e). This includes both severe and non-severe impairments when determining if the claimant can “meet the physical, mental, sensory, and other requirements of work.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(4); 416.945(a)(4). An ALJ may not arbitrarily reject or ignore uncontroverted medical evidence. McCruter v. Bowen, 791 F.2d 1544, 1548 (11th Cir. 1986) (administrative review must be of the entire record; accordingly, ALJ cannot point to evidence that supports the decision but disregard other contrary evidence). Ultimately, under the statutory and regulatory scheme, a claimant's RFC is a formulation reserved for the ALJ, who must support his findings with substantial evidence. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1546(c); 416.946(c).
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;On December 30, 2015, Suzanne Johnson, D.O. - a non-examining state agency physician - opined at the reconsideration level that Plaintiff retained the RFC for light work. (R. 75-76) She based her RFC assessment on her review of all the record medical evidence as of December 30, 2015, including the new evidence Plaintiff submitted at the reconsideration level: a cervical spine X-ray taken at Rose Radiology just a week earlier and August 2015 records from the Family Care Center. (R. 73) Dr. Johnson noted that Plaintiff suffers from diabetes, hypertension, and spine disorders. (Id.) And due to Plaintiff's “mildly reduced [e]ection ...