Source: http://ar.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20150428_0000464.WAR.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2016-12-11 13:49:39
Document Index: 28578493

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 205', '§ 405', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 3', '§ 404', 'art, 421', 'art, 390']

CARL FRANKLIN RUSSELL, Plaintiff,v.CAROLYN COLVIN Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant.
Carl Franklin Russell ("Plaintiff") brings this action pursuant to § 205(g) of Title II of the Social Security Act ("The Act"), 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2006), seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("SSA") denying his application for Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB") under Title II of the Act. The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge to conduct any and all proceedings in this case, including conducting the trial, ordering the entry of a final judgment, and conducting all post-judgment proceedings. ECF No. 5.[1] Pursuant to this authority, the Court issues this memorandum opinion and orders the entry of a final judgment in this matter.
Plaintiff's application for DIB was filed on February 22, 2011. (Tr. 22, 113-114). Plaintiff alleged he was disabled due to COPD and emphysema. (Tr. 133). Plaintiff alleged an onset date of February 18, 2011. (Tr. 22, 133). This application was denied initially and again upon reconsideration. (Tr. 22, 59-61, 63-64). Thereafter, Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing on his application and this hearing request was granted. (Tr. 67-68).
Plaintiff s administrative hearing was held on May 14, 2013. (Tr. 38-56). Plaintiff was present and was represented by counsel, Greg Giles, at this hearing. Id. Plaintiff and Vocational Expert ("VE") Talesia Beasley testified at this hearing. Id. At the time of this hearing, Plaintiff was fifty-three (53) years old, which is defined as a "person closely approaching advanced age" under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1563(d), and had a ninth grade education. (Tr. 40-41).
On June 12, 2013, the ALJ entered an unfavorable decision denying Plaintiff application for DIB. (Tr. 22-33). In this decision, the ALJ determined Plaintiff met the insured status requirements of the Act through December 31, 2015. (Tr. 24, Finding 1). The ALJ also determined Plaintiff had not engaged in Substantial Gainful Activity ("SGA") since his alleged onset date. (Tr. 24, Finding 2).
The ALJ also determined Plaintiff had the severe impairments of non obstructive coronary artery disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, depression, and PTSD. (Tr. 24, Finding 3). The ALJ then determined Plaintiff's impairments did not meet or medically equal the requirements of any of the Listing of Impairments in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of Regulations No. 4 ("Listings"). (Tr. 26, Finding 4).
In this decision, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff's subjective complaints and determined his RFC. (Tr. 27-31). First, the ALJ indicated he evaluated Plaintiff's subjective complaints and found his claimed limitations were not entirely credible. Id. Second, the ALJ determined Plaintiff had the RFC for light work but should avoid ropes, scaffolds, climbing and ladders; should avoid cold and heat extremes, wetness, humidity, fumes, odors, and dust; has the ability to understand, carry out and remember short and simple tasks and instructions, and requires nonpublic work with minimal coworker or supervisory interaction. (Tr. 27, Finding 5).
The ALJ evaluated Plaintiff's Past Relevant Work ("PRW"). (Tr. 32, Finding 6). The ALJ found Plaintiff was unable to perform his PRW. Id. The ALJ, however, also determined there was other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy Plaintiff could perform. (Tr. 32, Finding 10). The ALJ based his determination upon the testimony of the VE. Id. Specifically, the VE testified that given all Plaintiff's vocational factors, a hypothetical individual would be able to perform the requirements of a representative occupation such as assembly line worker with 9, 741 such jobs in Arkansas and 318, 204 such jobs in the nation, wire assembly worker with 4073 such jobs in Arkansas and 207, 870 such jobs in the nation, and line operator with 2, 445 such jobs in Arkansas and 81, 723 such jobs in the nation. Id. Based upon this finding, the ALJ determined Plaintiff had not been under a disability as defined by the Act from February 18, 2011, through the date of the decision. (Tr. 33, Finding 11).
Thereafter, Plaintiff requested the Appeals Council review the ALJ's decision. (Tr. 18). See 20 C.F.R. § 404.968. The Appeals Council declined to review this unfavorable decision. (Tr. 1-4). On April 16, 2014, Plaintiff filed the present appeal. ECF No. 1. The Parties consented to the jurisdiction of this Court on April 17, 2014. ECF No. 5. Both Parties have filed appeal briefs. ECF Nos. 9, 10. This case is now ready for decision.
Plaintiff brings the present appeal claiming the ALJ erred: (A) by failing to find Plaintiff met a Listing, (B) in the RFC determination, and (C) by failing to submit a proper hypothetical to the VE. ECF No. 9, Pgs. 10-20. In response, the Defendant argues the ALJ did not err in any of his findings. ECF No. 10.
The ALJ found Plaintiff did suffer from impairments considered to be severe within the meaning of the Social Security regulations. These impairments included non obstructive coronary artery disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, depression, and PTSD. (Tr. 24, Finding 3). However, there was no substantial evidence in the record showing Plaintiff's condition was severe enough to meet or equal that of a listed impairment as set forth in the Listing of Impairments. See 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app.1. Plaintiff has the burden of establishing that his impairment(s) meet or equal an impairment set out in the Listing of Impairments. See Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 530-31 (1990). Plaintiff has not met this burden.
Plaintiff argues he meets a Listing under Section 3.02 for Chronic Pulmonary Insufficiency. To meet Listing 3.02, Plaintiff must show:
A. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, due to any cause, with the FEV1 (forced expiratory volume) equal to or less than the values specified in Table I corresponding to the person's height without shoes. or
B. Chronic restrictive ventilatory disease, due to any cause, with the FVC (forced vital capacity) equal to or less than the values specified in Table II corresponding to the person's height without shoes. or
C. Chronic impairment of gas exchange due to clinically documented pulmonary disease with:
2. Arterial blood gas values of PO2 and simultaneously determined PCO2 measured while at rest (breathing room air, awake and sitting or standing) in a clinically stable condition on at least two occasions, three or more weeks apart within a 6-month period, equal to or less than the values specified in the applicable table III-A or III-B or III-C; or
See 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, § 3.02.
The medical evidence shows Plaintiff's pre-medication FEV1 was 1.81 and FVC was 3.80, and post-medication FEV1 was 2.16 and FVC was 4.46. (Tr. 496). To meet Listing 3.02(A) or (B), Table I and II require a person 71 inches in height, such as Plaintiff, to have an FEV1 equal to or less than 1.45 and FVC equal to or less than 1.75, respectively. Plaintiff's FEV1 and FVC values are higher than the criteria required under Listing 3.02 (A) or (B). Plaintiff's spirometry testing results establish Plaintiff does not meet Listing 3.02. Finally, Plaintiff does not reference any medical evidence to support a finding he meets the requirements of 3.02(C).
Whether Plaintiff meets a listed impairment is a medical determination and must be established by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1525(c), 404.1526(b), 416.925(c), 416.926(b). Plaintiff has not met this burden. I find substantial evidence supports the ALJ's determination that Plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of impairments equal to one listed in 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app.1.
In this matter, the ALJ determined Plaintiff retained the RFC to perform light work but should avoid ropes, scaffolds, climbing and ladders; should avoid cold and heat extremes, wetness, humidity, fumes, odors, and dust; has the ability to understand, carry out and remember short and simple tasks and instructions, and requires nonpublic work with minimal coworker or supervisory interaction. (Tr. 27, Finding 5). Plaintiff argues the ALJ erred in this RFC determination. ECF No. 9, Pgs. 15-18. However, substantial evidence supports the ALJ's RFC determination.
Plaintiff argues the RFC assessment of Chiropractor Dr. R. Daniel Wolfe, along with Plaintiff's respiratory impairments, do not support the ALJ's RFC determination. ECF No. 9, Pgs. 15-18.
On October 25, 2013, Dr. Wolfe prepared an RFC assessment which found Plaintiff incapable of performing light work. (Tr. 14-17). The assessment was made as a result of an October 4, 2013 car accident. Id. Plaintiff's administrative hearing was May 14, 2013 (Tr. 38-56) and the ALJ's decision was made on June 12, 2013. (Tr. 22-33). Therefore, Dr. Wolfe's assessment was related to a later time period and had no relevance as to whether Plaintiff was disabled prior to June 12, 2013, the date of the ALJ's decision.
As for Plaintiff's respiratory impairments, the ALJ pointed out that although Plaintiff alleged disability due to breathing impairments, he continued to smoke more than one pack of cigarettes per day. (Tr. 28). Further, Plaintiff was advised by treating physicians to stop smoking. (Tr. 233-234, 279, 286, 290, 419, 498-499, 507, 515, 521). Finally, the ALJ did account for respiratory issues of Plaintiff in the RFC when he found Plaintiff should avoid cold and heat extremes, wetness, humidity, fumes, odors, and dust. (Tr. 27, Finding 5).
As shown by the above medical evidence, substantial evidence supports the ALJ's RFC determination. Plaintiff has the burden of establishing his claimed RFC. See Goff v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 785, 790 (8th Cir. 2005) (quoting Eichelberger v. Barnhart, 390 F.3d 584, 590 (8th Cir. 2004)). Because Plaintiff has not met his burden in this case and because the ALJ's RFC determination is supported by sufficient medical evidence, this Court finds the ALJ's RFC determination should be affirmed.
The ALJ found Plaintiff had the RFC to perform light work but should avoid ropes, scaffolds, climbing and ladders; should avoid cold and heat extremes, wetness, humidity, fumes, odors, and dust; has the ability to understand, carry out and remember short and simple tasks and instructions, and requires nonpublic work with minimal coworker or supervisory interaction. (Tr. 27, Finding 5). In response to a hypothetical question containing these limitations, the VE testified work existed in the national economy consistent with the limitations found by the ALJ. (Tr. 53-55). The ALJ found a significant number of jobs existed in the national economy which Plaintiff could perform. (Tr. 32, Finding 10). Relying on the VE testimony, the ALJ found Plaintiff was not under a disability as defined by the Act. (Tr. 33, Finding 11).
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned finds that the decision of the ALJ is supported by substantial evidence and should be affirmed. A judgment incorporating these findings will be entered pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 52 and 58.