United States District Court, D. Kansas
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ERIC F. MELGREN, District Judge.
Plaintiff William Hert seeks review of a final decision by Defendant, the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner"), denying his application for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. Plaintiff alleges that the administrative law judge ("ALJ") erred in finding that substance abuse was a contributing factor to Plaintiff's disability and erred in stating Plaintiff's residual functional capacity ("RFC") because there was an inadequate narrative discussion of the evidence. Having reviewed the record, and as described below, the Court affirms the order of the Commissioner.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
William Hert was born on March 26, 1960. On November 25, 2009, Hert applied for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income alleging that he became disabled on January 1, 1984. Hert alleged that he was unable to work due to "[g]eneral anxiety disorder, suicidal, major recurrent depression, post traumatic stress disorder, head trauma, and left hip problems." The agency denied his applications. Hert then asked for a hearing before an ALJ.
ALJ James Lessis conducted an administrative hearing on May 23, 2012. Hert was represented by counsel at this hearing, and Hert testified about his medical conditions. The ALJ also heard from Hert's case manager and a vocational expert.
On August 31, 2012, the ALJ issued his written decision, finding that Hert had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset date and that Hert suffered from a severe combination of mood disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, polysubstance disorder, status post cerebral vascular accident, hepatitis C, and seizure disorder. The ALJ found that Hert's impairments, along with his polysubstance abuse, met the requirements of a disability under 12.09, as analyzed under Listings 12.04, 12.06, and 12.02 under 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. The ALJ then found that if Plaintiff stopped the substance abuse, Plaintiff would not have an impairment or combination of impairments that would meet any of the impairments listed in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 because the remaining limitations would not meet or medically equal the listed criteria. Absent the substance abuse, the ALJ determined Hert's RFC as follows:
If the claimant stopped the substance use, the claimant would have the residual functional capacity to maintain employment at the level of lifting and carrying 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently; standing and walking 6 hours in an 8-hour workday; and sitting 6 hours in an 8-hour workday as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b) except occasional climbing of ramps and stairs, occasional balancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, and crawling; frequent reaching, handling, fingering, and feeling; occasional exposure to extreme temperatures; exposure to vibrations, moving mechanical parts, electrical shock, hazardous exposed places, radiation, and explosive equal to or less than 1% of the time, and occasional exposure to fumes, odors, dust, gases, and poor ventilation. From a general educational development standpoint, the claimant retains the reasoning, mathematics and language skills to perform simple work with understanding and carrying out simple one- or two-step instructions, dealing with standardized situations with occasional or no variables in situations encountered on the job, performing basic arithmetic operations, and reading, writing, and speaking in simple sentences using normal work order. This mental functioning correlates to the levels of Reasoning, Math, Language (R-M-L) Development described in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles at levels 1-1-1 (the lowest levels). Furthermore, the claimant is limited to occasional contact with the public, co-workers, and supervisors.
The ALJ then found that although Plaintiff did not have past relevant work, there were jobs in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform if Plaintiff discontinued his substance abuse. In sum, the ALJ concluded that because Hert's substance abuse was a contributing factor material to the determination of disability, Hert had not been disabled from the alleged onset date through the date of the decision.
Given the unfavorable result, Hert requested reconsideration of the ALJ's decision from the Appeals Council. The Appeals Council denied Hert's request on February 18, 2014. Accordingly, the ALJ's August 2012 decision became the final decision of the Commissioner.
Hert then filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. He seeks reversal of the ALJ's decision and either the grant of benefits or remand to the Commissioner for a new administrative hearing. Because Hert has exhausted all administrative remedies available, this Court has jurisdiction to review the decision.
II. Legal Standard
Judicial review of the Commissioner's decision is guided by the Social Security Act (the "Act") which provides, in part, that the "findings of the Commissioner as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive." The Court must therefore determine whether the factual findings of the Commissioner are supported by substantial evidence in the record and whether the ALJ applied the correct legal standard. "Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla, but less than a preponderance; in short, it is such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept to support the conclusion." The Court may "neither reweigh the evidence nor substitute [its] judgment for that of the [Commissioner]."
An individual is under a disability only if he can "establish that [he] has a physical or mental impairment which prevents [him] from engaging in substantial gainful activity and is expected to result in death or to last for a continuous period of at least twelve months." This impairment "must be severe enough that he is unable to perform his past relevant work, and further cannot engage in other substantial gainful work existing in the national economy, considering his age, education, and work experience."
Pursuant to the Act, the Social Security Administration has established a five-step sequential evaluation process for determining whether an individual is disabled. The steps are designed to be followed in order. If it is determined, at any step of the evaluation process, that the claimant is or ...