United States District Court, D. Kansas
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JOHN
W. BROOMES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Plaintiff
filed this action for review of a final decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff's
application for social security disability benefits. The
matter has been fully briefed by the parties and is ripe for
decision. (Docs. 9, 12, 13.) The Commissioner's decision
is AFFIRMED for the reasons set forth herein.
I.
Standard of Review
The
court's standard of review is set forth in 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g), which provides that “the findings of the
Commissioner as to any fact, if supported by substantial
evidence, shall be conclusive.” The Commissioner's
decision will be reviewed to determine only whether the
decision was supported by substantial evidence and whether
the Commissioner applied the correct legal standards.
Glenn v. Shalala, 21 F.3d 983, 984 (10th Cir. 1994).
Substantial evidence requires more than a scintilla, but less
than a preponderance, and is satisfied by such evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support the
conclusion. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401
(1971).
Although
the court is not to reweigh the evidence, the findings of the
Commissioner will not be mechanically accepted. Nor will the
findings be affirmed by isolating facts and labeling them
substantial evidence, as the court must scrutinize the entire
record in determining whether the Commissioner's
conclusions are rational. Graham v. Sullivan, 794
F.Supp. 1045, 1047 (D. Kan. 1992). The court should examine
the record as a whole, including whatever fairly detracts
from the weight of the Commissioner's decision and, on
that basis, determine if the substantiality of the evidence
test has been met. Glenn, 21 F.3d at 984.
The
Commissioner has established a five-step sequential
evaluation process to determine disability. 20 C.F.R. §
404.1520; Wilson v. Astrue, 602 F.3d 1136, 1139
(10th Cir. 2010). If at any step a finding of disability or
non-disability can be made, the Commissioner will not review
the claim further. At step one, the agency will find
non-disability unless the claimant can show that he or she is
not working at a “substantial gainful activity.”
Williams v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 748, 750 (10th Cir.
1988). At step two, the agency will find non-disability
unless the claimant shows that he or she has a severe
impairment. At step three, the agency determines whether the
impairment which enabled the claimant to survive step two is
on the list of impairments presumed severe enough to render
one disabled. Id. at 750-51. If the claimant's
impairment does not meet or equal a listed impairment, the
agency determines the claimant's residual functional
capacity (“RFC”). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e).
The RFC assessment is used to evaluate the claim at both step
four and step five. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4); §
404.1520(f), (g). At step four, the agency must determine
whether the claimant can perform previous work. If a claimant
shows that she cannot perform the previous work, the fifth
and final step requires the agency to consider vocational
factors (the claimant's age, education, and past work
experience) and to determine whether the claimant is capable
of performing other jobs existing in significant numbers in
the national economy. Barnhart v. Thomas, 124 S.Ct.
376, 379-380 (2003).
The
claimant bears the burden of proof through step four of the
analysis. Blea v. Barnhart, 466 F.3d 903, 907 (10th
Cir. 2006). At step five, the burden shifts to the
Commissioner to show that the claimant can perform other work
that exists in the national economy. Id.;
Thompson v. Sullivan, 987 F.2d 1482, 1487 (10th Cir.
1993). The Commissioner meets this burden if the decision is
supported by substantial evidence. Thompson, 987
F.2d at 1487.
II.
Background and Procedural History
Plaintiff
applied for disability insurance benefits, alleging a
disability beginning February 20, 2013, when she was 36 years
of age. (Tr. at 12, 183.) Prior to that time, Plaintiff held
jobs as a supervisor and unit clerk. (Tr. at 188.)
Plaintiff's claims were administratively denied both
initially and upon reconsideration, prompting her to request
a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). Plaintiff
appeared and testified at a hearing in Wichita on October 16,
2017, before ALJ Susan Toth. On February 28, 2018, the ALJ
issued a written decision unfavorable to Plaintiff. (Tr. at
12-23.)
At step
one, the ALJ found Plaintiff had not been engaged in
substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset date.
(Tr. at 14.) At step two, the ALJ found Plaintiff suffered
from the following severe impairments: fibromyalgia,
idiopathic peripheral neuropathy, degenerative joint disease
of the bilateral knees, obesity, degenerative disc disease of
the lumbar spine, mitral valve prolapse, and adjustment
disorder with anxiety and depressed mood. (Id. at
14-15.) The ALJ also found Plaintiff had undergone treatment
for hypertension, vitamin D and B12 deficiencies, and chest
wall pain, but found these impairments were not severe.
(Id. at 15.) At step three, the ALJ found that none
of Plaintiff's impairments, alone or in combination, met
or exceeded any impairment listed in the regulations.
(Id. at 15-17.)
The ALJ
next determined that Plaintiff has the RFC to perform light
work, as defined in the regulations, in that she can lift,
carry, push and/or pull 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds
frequently; can stand and/or walk for 6 hours in an 8-hour
workday; can sit for a total of 6 hours in an 8-hour workday;
can frequently climb ramps and stairs; can understand,
remember, and apply simple and intermediate instructions, but
not complex instructions and maintain concentration,
persistence, and pace for simple and intermediate tasks but
not complex tasks.[2] (Id. at 17.)
In
determining Plaintiff's RFC, the ALJ found
Plaintiff's medically determinable impairments could
reasonably be expected to cause her symptoms, but
Plaintiff's statements as to the intensity, persistence,
and limiting effects of the symptoms were not entirely
consistent with the medical and other evidence. (Tr. at 18.)
The ALJ noted Plaintiff had both physical and mental health
problems but found the evidence did not support debilitating
limitations. The ALJ reviewed medical and other evidence
pertaining to Plaintiff's symptoms.
With
respect to Plaintiff's fibromyalgia diagnosis, the ALJ
stated that it was confirmed through tender point testing and
that she also has mild degenerative changes to her lumbar
spine and knees. The evidence shows that Plaintiff has had
normal range of motion in her knees and ambulates with normal
gait. Plaintiff does have muscle spasms, but they have
improved with the use of medication. Plaintiff also receives
trigger point injections. (Tr. at 19.) The ALJ stated that
there is evidence that Plaintiff has remained physically
active and that her treating physician has encouraged her to
remain active and exercise regularly as the best treatment
for her fibromyalgia. (Id.)
The ALJ
gave great weight to the opinions of the state agency medical
consultants, Dr. Sarah Landers and Dr. John Listerman. The
ALJ stated as follows with respect to these opinions:
“Their opinions are well-explained, well-supported by
the evidence discussed above, and consistent with the record
as a whole.” (Tr. at 20.) The ALJ does not identify the
opinions of the non-examining physicians but a review of
their opinions show that they are consistent with the
ALJ's RFC. (Tr. at 70-73, 85-88.)
Plaintiff's
treating physician, Dr. Mary Boyce, provided two opinions in
which she opined that Plaintiff was unable to work. The ALJ
gave little weight to those opinions, stating the following:
Dr. Boyce opines that the claimant is unable to perform even
sedentary exertional work on a full-time basis. Her opinion,
however, is not well-supported by the evidence, and many of
her restrictions are not explained. Dr. Boyce's opinion
that the claimant is rarely able to lift 10 pounds, for
instance, is not explained, nor are her postural and
manipulative restrictions, which seem out of line with the
mild degenerative changes that diagnostic imaging has shown
in her back and knees. The minimal ability to stand, as well
as Dr. Boyce's opinion that the claimant would ...