United States District Court, D. Kansas
JOHN W.K. WORKMAN, Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JULIE
A. ROBINSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This
matter is before the Court for review of the final decision
of Defendant Commissioner of Social Security[1] denying Plaintiff
John W.K. Workman's application for supplemental security
income under Title XVI of the Social Security
Act.[2]
In response to Plaintiff's brief in this case, Defendant
filed a Motion to Reverse and Remand and For Entry of Final
Judgment (Doc. 10). Plaintiff filed a Response to
Defendant's Motion to Reverse and Remand (Doc. 11),
pointing to Defendant's failure to identify any errors or
basis for a remand for further administrative adjudication.
Defendant has not replied to Plaintiff's response. The
Court finds that Defendant's findings are not supported
by substantial evidence, but does not find that the record
establishes the basis for an immediate award of benefits in
lieu of remand. Thus, the Court grants Defendant's motion
for remand, and directs the Commissioner to reconsider its
analyses at steps two and three, and if necessary, at steps
four and five, consistent with the Administrative Law
Judge's errors and the Court's concerns identified in
this decision.
I.
Procedural History
On
January 23, 2013, Plaintiff applied for supplemental security
income, alleging disability beginning May 27, 2012. The claim
was denied initially and upon reconsideration; after a
hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”)
issued a decision finding that Plaintiff was not disabled and
the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for
review. Plaintiff then sought judicial review in this court.
II.
Standard for Judicial Review
Judicial
review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) is limited to whether
Defendant's decision is supported by substantial evidence
in the record as a whole and whether Defendant applied the
correct legal standards.[3] The Tenth Circuit has defined
“substantial evidence” as “such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion.”[4] In the course of its review, the
court may not re-weigh the evidence or substitute its
judgment for that of Defendant.[5]
III.
Legal Standards and Analytical Framework
Under
the Social Security Act, “disability” means the
“inability to engage in any substantial gainful
activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or
mental impairment.”[6] 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.”[7] The Secretary has established a
five-step sequential evaluation process to determine whether
a claimant is disabled.[8] If the ALJ determines the claimant is
disabled or not disabled at any step along the way, the
evaluation ends.[9]
IV.
Discussion
Plaintiff
challenges the ALJ's determination at step three that
Plaintiff's severe impairment of borderline intellectual
functioning does not meet the listings at 12.05C or 12.05D,
[10]
and by implication challenges the ALJ's finding at step
two that Plaintiff's depression and anxiety are not
severe impairments. Plaintiff alternatively argues that the
ALJ erred at step four in determining Plaintiff's
residual functional capacity (“RFC”), which
Plaintiff argues is in part a product of the ALJ's
improper evaluation of the medical evidence of record.
A.
Listing 12.05(C) and 12.05(D)
At step
three of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ
determines whether the claimant's impairments meet or
equal one of the listings in Subpart P, Appendix 1,
[11]
for if he does, he is disabled.[12] It is the claimant's
burden to present evidence establishing that his
impairment(s) met or equaled listed
impairment(s).[13]
Listing
12.05 states in relevant part that,
Mental retardation refers to significantly
subaverage general intellectual functioning with deficits in
adaptive functioning initially manifested during the
developmental period, i.e., the evidence demonstrates or
supports onset of the impairment before age 22.[14]
This
listing requires proof that one of four requirements are
satisfied:
A. Mental capacity evidenced by dependence upon others for
personal needs (e.g. toileting, eating, dressing, or bathing)
and inability to follow directions, such that the use of
standardized measures of intellectual functioning is
precluded; or
B. A valid verbal, performance, or full scale IQ of 59 or
less; or
C. A valid verbal, performance, or full scale IQ of 60
through 70 and a physical or other mental impairment imposing
an additional and significant work-related limitation of
function; or
D. A valid verbal, performance, or full scale IQ of 60
through 70, resulting in at least ...