Opinion ID: 2981776
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: Jerry Gay injured his back in the mid-1980s. He did not seek medical treatment at that time. In 2004, he began experiencing severe lower back pain. Beginning in 2005, he was examined by No. 12-1653 Gay v. Commissioner of Social Security several different physicians, and in 2007 he began receiving treatment for the back pain as well as for some respiratory problems. Gay first applied for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income on April 12, 2005, alleging an onset date of October 1, 2004. His application was initially denied, and Gay requested a hearing. A hearing was held before ALJ Michael Wilenkin, who considered Gay’s testimony and reviewed medical records from three physicians. ALJ Wilenkin found Gay “not entirely credible” and concluded that Gay was capable of light work and could perform his past relevant work as a janitor or line stocker. Therefore, ALJ Wilenkin found that Gay was not disabled and denied his claim for benefits on October 12, 2007. Gay filed his second application on January 14, 2008, alleging an onset date of October 13, 2007 (the day after ALJ Wilenkin’s decision). His second application was initially denied, and Gay again requested a hearing, which was held before ALJ Timothy Scallen on January 8, 2010. Gay was represented by a non-attorney representative. At the hearing, Gay amended his onset date to October 2, 2005—his 50th birthday. On the same day as the hearing, Gay’s personal representative sent ALJ Scallen a letter requesting that he reopen ALJ Wilenkin’s 2007 decision. 20 C.F.R. § 404.988(b) allows an ALJ to reopen a prior decision adjudicating a claim for Disability Insurance Benefits within four years of the initial determination if the ALJ finds “good cause” to do so.1 “Good cause” is satisfied if “[n]ew 1 A decision adjudicating a claim for Supplemental Security Income can only be reopened for good cause within two years of the initial determination. 20 C.F.R. § 416.1488(b). -2- No. 12-1653 Gay v. Commissioner of Social Security and material evidence is furnished” or if “[t]he evidence that was considered in making the determination or decision clearly shows on its face that an error was made.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.989(a). Gay’s personal representative contended that Gay could satisfy both methods of showing good cause. In connection with his second application, Gay had submitted more medical records from additional doctors. Gay’s representative pointed in particular to records from Gay’s treating physician that contained evidence of Gay’s respiratory ailments and were not submitted with Gay’s first application. Additionally, Gay’s representative argued that ALJ Wilenkin’s conclusion that Gay could perform his past work as a janitor or a cook was clearly erroneous in light of the medical opinions from two of the doctors whose reports ALJ Wilenkin discussed in his decision. ALJ Scallen never explicitly ruled on Gay’s request to reopen. Instead, in his opinion he acknowledged ALJ Wilenkin’s decision and cited two Sixth Circuit cases and related acquiescence rulings from the Social Security Administration. These cases stand for the principle that when confronted with a second application for benefits, an ALJ is bound by favorable subsidiary findings from the previous determination, unless there is new and material evidence to the contrary. See Drummond v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 126 F.3d 837 (6th Cir. 1997); Dennard v. Sec. of Health & Human Servs., 907 F.2d 598 (6th Cir. 1990); SSAR 98-3(6); SSAR 98-4(6). ALJ Scallen explained his approach as follows: The reason for not adopting the findings of the prior decision in this case is that the current record contains new and material evidence relating to these findings and establishes that the claimant’s condition has persisted since that time with allegations of postural limitations. Further, the claimant has submitted new and material evidence relating to the previously determined nonsevere impairments. Specifically, the claimant has been diagnosed with asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and obesity. His current evidence shows that the claimant is significantly -3- No. 12-1653 Gay v. Commissioner of Social Security limited in his ability to climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds and work in an environment with concentrated exposure to unprotected heights, vibrating tools, moving machinery, dust, fumes, gases, and smoke. A.R. 14. Later in his opinion, he stated that because Gay had argued that “the prior decision did not take into account all of [Gay’s] impairments including [Gay’s] degenerative disc disease, asthma, COPD, and obesity, and [Gay’s] alleged limited bending/twisting,” his analysis would “continue[] with consideration of all the diagnoses since the amended onset date of October 22, 2005.”2 A.R. 16. After addressing the prior decision, ALJ Scallen applied the five-step sequential evaluation process for determining whether a person is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. He applied steps one through three and then turned to Gay’s residual functional capacity. After finding Gay not entirely credible, ALJ Scallen addressed the medical evidence. He discussed the records from one of the doctors whose records ALJ Wilenkin had examined and also discussed the additional evidence Gay had submitted with his second application. He did not discuss the records from the other two doctors that Gay had submitted to ALJ Wilenkin. Ultimately, ALJ Scallen disagreed with ALJ Wilenkin’s conclusion that Gay could perform his past relevant work. He concluded that Gay could do only light work that involved no climbing of ropes, ladders, or scaffolds or exposure to solvents, paint, smoke, and fumes and only occasionally involved climbing ramps and stairs, balancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, or crawling. ALJ Scallen determined that this residual functional capacity rendered Gay unable to perform his past 2 The onset date in ALJ Scallen’s opinion is probably a mistake and should be October 2, 2005—the amended onset date Gay specified. -4- No. 12-1653 Gay v. Commissioner of Social Security relevant work as a cook or housekeeper. However, Gay could perform other work available in the national economy, such as working as an assembler, packager, or sorter. In the end, ALJ Scallen concluded that Gay had not been under a disability since October 22, 2005. The Appeals Council declined Gay’s request for review, rendering ALJ Scallen’s decision the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.955; Wilson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 543-44 (6th Cir. 2004). Gay then sought judicial review. See 42 U.S.C. 405(g). Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. A magistrate judge wrote a Report and Recommendation recommending that the district court affirm. The magistrate found with little discussion that ALJ Scallen had not reopened ALJ Wilenkin’s decision, and further found that substantial evidence supported ALJ Scallen’s decision. The district court adopted the Report and Recommendation to affirm, granted the Commissioner’s summary judgment motion, and denied Gay’s motion. After receiving an extension of time from the district court, Gay appealed.