Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Stookey v. Colvin

United States District Court, D. Kansas

July 22, 2014

RAYMOND L. STOOKEY, Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SAM A. CROW, Senior District Judge.

This is an action reviewing the final decision of the defendant Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") that denied the claimant Raymond L. Stookey's ("Stookey") application for disability insurance benefits and his application for supplemental security income ("SSI") under the Social Security Act ("Act"). Stookey alleged a disability onset set date of January 31, 2006, based on a combination of impairments. The administrative law judge ("ALJ") filed his decision on February 8, 2012, finding that Stookey was not under a disability from the alleged onset date through the date of his decision. (Tr. 10-20). With the Appeals Council's denial of Stookey's request for review, the ALJ's decision stands as the Commissioner's final decision. The administrative record (Dk. 8) and the parties' briefs are on file pursuant to D. Kan. Rule 83.7.1 (Dks. 9, 17 and 18), the case is ripe for review and decision.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The court's standard of review is set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which provides that the Commissioner's finding "as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive." The court also reviews "whether the correct legal standards were applied." Hackett v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1168, 1172 (10th Cir. 2005). Substantial evidence is that which "a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Richardson v. Persales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) (quotation and citation omitted). "It requires more than a scintilla, but less than a preponderance." Lax v. Astrue, 489 F.3d 1080, 1084 (10th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). The review for substantial evidence "must be based upon the record taken as a whole" while keeping in mind "evidence is not substantial if it is overwhelmed by other evidence in the record." Wall v. Astrue, 561 F.3d 1048, 1052 (10th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). In its review of "whether the ALJ followed the specific rules of law that must be followed in weighing particular types of evidence in disability cases, ... [the court] will not reweigh the evidence or substitute... [its] judgment for the Commissioner's." Lax, 489 F.3d at 1084 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

The court's duty to assess whether substantial evidence exists: "is not merely a quantitative exercise. Evidence is not substantial §if it is overwhelmed by other evidence-particularly certain types of evidence (e.g., that offered by treating physicians)-or if it really constitutes not evidence but mere conclusion.'" Gossett v. Bowen, 862 F.2d 802, 805 (10th Cir. 1988) (quoting Fulton v. Heckler, 760 F.2d 1052, 1055 (10th Cir. 1985)). At the same time, the court "may not displace the agency's choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo." Lax v. Astrue, 489 F.3d at 1084 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The court will "meticulously examine the record as a whole, including anything that may undercut or detract from the ALJ's findings in order to determine if the substantiality test has been made." Wall v. Astrue, 561 F.3d at 1052 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

By statute, a disability is the "inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to... last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months." 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). An individual "shall be determined to be under a disability only if his physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy...." 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A).

A five-step sequential process is used in evaluating a claim of disability. Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140 (1987). The first step entails determining whether the "claimant is presently engaged in substantial gainful activity." Wall v. Astrue, 561 F.3d at 1052 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The second step requires the claimant to show he suffers from a "severe impairment, " that is, any "impairment or combination of impairments which limits [the claimant's] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities." Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 24 (2003) (internal quotation marks and regulatory citations omitted). At step three, the claimant is to show his impairment is equivalent in severity to a listed impairment. Lax, 489 F.3d at 1084. "If a claimant cannot meet a listing at step three, he continues to step four, which requires the claimant to show that the impairment or combination of impairments prevents him from performing his past work." Id. Should the claimant meet his burden at step four, the Commissioner then assumes the burden at step five of showing "that the claimant retains sufficient RFC [residual functional capacity] to perform work in the national economy" considering the claimant's age, education, and work experience. Wilson v. Astrue, 602 F.3d 1136, 1139 (10th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Substantial evidence must support the Commissioner's showing at step five. Thompson v. Sullivan, 987 F.2d 1482, 1487 (10th Cir. 1993).

ALJ'S DECISION

At step one, the ALJ found that Stookey had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset date of his disability. At step two, the ALJ found the following severe impairments: "diabetes, peripheral neuropathy, obesity, mild degenerative joint disease of the spine." (Tr. 12). The ALJ excluded from this listing the following impairments as non-severe: tachycardia, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, asthma, gastroesophogeal reflux disease ("GERD"), spleen infarction, restless leg syndrome, anxiety and depression. Id. at 12-13. At step three, the ALJ did not find that the impairments, individually or together, equaled the severity of the Listing of Impairments. Before moving to steps four and five, the ALJ determined that Stookey had the residual functional capacity ("RFC") to perform:

sedentary work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(a) and 416.967(a) except the claimant can lift and carry twenty pounds occasionally and ten pounds frequently; walk or stand two hours of an eight hour work day, for thirty minutes a time; sit for six hours of an eight hour work day, for thirty minutes a time; never push or pull with his lower extremities; occasionally climb stairs; never climb ropes, scaffolds or ladders; occasionally balance, stoop, crouch, kneel or crawl; he must avoid prolonged exposure to temperature extremes and vibrating machinery; much avoid moving machinery and unprotected heights; and secondary to his reported chronic pain and the potential side effects of medications he is limited to jobs that do not demand attention to details or complicated job tasks or instructions.

(Tr. 15). At step four, the ALJ found that the claimant is unable to perform any past relevant work. (Tr. 18). At step five, the vocational expert provided testimony from which the ALJ concluded that "[c]onsidering the claimant's age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity, there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that the claimant can perform." Id.

ISSUE ONE: SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE FOR RFC FINDING

The plaintiff first challenges that the ALJ failed to include as part of the RFC his prior findings that due to the plaintiff's medically determinable mental impairments of depression and anxiety he had mild limitations in two functional areas-social functioning and concentration, persistence, or pace. Without these limitations in the ALJ's hypothetical question to the vocational expert ("VE"), the plaintiff concludes the VE's testimony cannot be substantial evidence. RFC is the most a claimant can still do despite physical and mental limitations. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945(a). To assess a claimant's RFC, the ALJ must consider the combined effect of all the claimant's medically determinable impairments, whether severe or not severe. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(2), 416.945(a)(2). "[T]he Commissioner's procedures do not permit the ALJ to simply rely on his finding of non-severity as a substitute for a proper RFC analysis." Wells v. Colvin, 727 F.3d 1061, 1065 (10th Cir. 2013) (citing See Social Security Ruling (SSR) 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184 at *4 (July 2, 1996)). "[A] conclusion that the claimant's mental impairments are non-severe at step two does not permit the ALJ simply to disregard those impairments when assessing a claimant's RFC and making conclusions at steps four and five." Id. at 1068-69.

The ALJ' decision states that the "paragraph B" analysis relates to steps two and three but that "[t]he mental residual functional capacity assessment used at steps 4 and 5 of the sequential evaluation process requires a more detailed assessment by itemizing various functions contained in the broad categories found in paragraph B of the adult mental disorders listings in 12.00 of the Listing of Impairments (SSR 96-8p)." (Tr. 15). The ALJ concludes, "[t]herefore, the following residual functional capacity assessment reflects the degree of limitation the undersigned has found in the paragraph B" mental function analysis." Id . At step four in making the RFC findings, the ALJ wrote that he had "considered all symptoms and the extent to which these symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence, based ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.