Neet v. Commissioner Social Security Administration
Filing
11
Findings & Recommendation: The Commissioner's decision that Neet did not suffer from disability and is not entitled to benefits under Titles II of the Social Security Act is not based upon correct legal standards or supported by substantial evid ence. The Commissioner's decision should be reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Objections to the Findings and Recommendation are due by 1/23/2009. Response to Objections to the Findings and Recommendation are due by 2/6/2009. Signed on 1/8/09 by Magistrate Judge Paul Papak. (gm)
<![CDATA[
FILED
JAN 08
I N T H E UNITED STATES D I S T R I C T C O U R T F O R T H E D I S T R I C T OF O R E G O N
ROBERTNEET, Plaintiff
v.
M I C H A E L 1. A S T R U E , C o m m i s s i o n e r o f Social Security, Defendant. R O R Y LINERUD P O B o x 1105 S a l e m , O r e g o n 97308 A t t o r n e y for P l a i n t i f f K A R I N J. I M M E R G U T U n i t e d States Attorney B R l T T A N A I. H O B B S A s s i s t a n t U n i t e d States Attorney 1000 S . W . T h i r d A v e n u e , S u i t e 6 0 0 Portland, O R 97204-2904
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Civil No. 0 7 - 1 5 9 1 - P K FINDINGS A N D RECOMMENDATION
DAVlD 1. BURDETT Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Social S e c u r i t y A d m i n i s t r a t i o n 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900, MIS 901 Seattle, W A 98104-7075 Attorneys f o r D e f e n d a n t Papak, Magistrate Judge: Plaintiff Robert N e e t ("Neet") seeks judicial review o f the Social Secmity Commissioner's final decision denying his application for Disability Insmance Benefits under Titles II o f the Social Security Act ("Act"). This court has jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). For the following reasons, I recommend the Commissioner's decision be reversed and r e m a n d e d f o r f m t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h these F i n d i n g s a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n .
BACKGROUND
B o r n in 1964 (tr. 75 1) , Neet completed high school. Tr. 92. Neet reports work as a roofer and carpenter between 1990 and December 31, 2000. T r . 8 8 . Neet applied for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Secmity Income o n March 1 0 , 2 0 0 4 (tr. 77), alleging disability since December 3 1 , 2 0 0 0 . Tr. 88. Neet initially alleged d i s a b i l i t y d u e t o a l c o h o l i s m , s e i z u r e s , a s t h m a , a n d p a n c r e a t i t i s . T r . 8 7 . The C o m m i s s i o n e r d e n i e d N e e f s applications initially and upon reconsideration. Tr. 62-71'> An A U held a hearing o n September 1,2005, Tr. 989-1008, and subsequently found Neet disabled as o f J u n e 1 , 2 0 0 5 , but not before that date. Tr. 30, resulting in a partially favorable decision for Neet. The Appeals Council
ICitations " T r . " refer to indicated pages in the official transcript o f the administrative record filed with the Commissioner's Answer (Docket #8). 2The record before this court references the Commissioner's SSI determination (tr. 5) but does not include it. 2 - FINDINGS A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N
accepted additional medical evidence into the record b u t denied N e e t ' s request for reconsideration. Tr. 7-20. The A U ' s decision. thus, became final o n A u g u s t 30, 2007. Tr. 7. N e e t subsequently filed this action challenging the decision only as to his Disability Insurance Benefits claim.
D I S A B I L I T Y ANALYSIS
The Commissioner engages i n a sequential process encompassing between one and five steps i n determining disability under the meaning o f the Act. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520; 416.920, Bowen v.
Yuckerf, 482 U.S. 137, 140 (1987).
A t s t e p o n e , t h e A L J d e t e r m i n e s i f t h e c l a i m a n t i s p e r f o r m i n g s u b s t a n t i a l g a i n f u l activity. I f he is, the claimant is n o t disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404. 1520(a)(4)(i); 416.1520(a)(4)(i). A t s t e p t w o , t h e A L J d e t e r m i n e s i f t h e c l a i m a n t has " a severe m e d i c a l l y d e t e r m i n a b l e physical o r mental impairment" that meets the twelve month duration requirement. 20 C.F .R. §§ 404.1509, 404. 1520(a)(4)(ii); 416.909; 416.920(a)(4)(ii). I f t h e claimant does n o t have such a severe impairment, he is n o t disabled. Id. A t step three, t h e A U determines w h e t h e r t h e severe i m p a i r m e n t m e d i c a l l y m e e t s o r equals a " l i s t e d " impairment in t h e regulations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404. 1520(a)(4)(iii),416.920(a)(4)(iii). I f the impairment is determined to equal a listed impairment, t h e claimant i s disabled. I f a d j u d i c a t i o n p r o c e e d s b e y o n d step three the A L J m u s t first evaluate m e d i c a l a n d o t h e r r e l e v a n t e v i d e n c e i n a s s e s s i n g t h e c l a i m a n t ' s residual functional c a p a c i t y ( " R F C " ) . T h i s e v a l u a t i o n i n c l u d e s a s s e s s m e n t o f the c l a i m a n t ' s statements regarding h e r impairments. 20 C.F .R. §§
404.1545(a)(3); 416.945(a)(3). The c l a i m a n t ' s RFC is a n assessment o f work-related activities the c l a i m a n t may s t i l l p e r f o r m o n a r e g u l a r a n d c o n t i n u i n g b a s i s , d e s p i t e l i m i t a t i o n s i m p o s e d b y h i s impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 404.920(e), Social Security Ruling ("SSR") 96-8p. 3 - FINDINGS A N D R E C O M M E N D A n O N
The ALJ uses this information to determine i f the claimant can perform his past relevant w o r k at step four. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv); 416.920(a)(4)(iv). I f the claimant c a n perform her p a s t relevant work, he is n o t disabled. I f the ALJ finds that the claimant's RFC precludes performance o f his p a s t relevant work the ALJ proceeds to step five. A t step five the Commissioner must determine i f the claimant is capable o f performing w o r k existing i n the national economy. Yuckert, 482 U.S. a t 142; Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1099 (9th Cir. 1999); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1 520(a)(4)(v), 404.1520(f); 416.920(a)(4)(v); 416.920(f). I f the claimant cannot perform such work, he is disabled. Id. The initial burden o f establishing disability rests u p o n the claimant. Tackett, 180 F.3d a t 1098. I f the process reaches the fifth step, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show that " t h e claimant can perform some other work that exists in the national economy, taking into consideration the claimant's residual functional capacity, age, education, and w o r k experience." Id. at 1100. I f the Commissioner meets this burden the claimant is n o t disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1566, 4 0 4 . 1 5 2 0 ( g ) ; 4 1 6 . 9 6 6 ; 416.920(g). T H E A L J ' S FINDINGS T h e A L J f o u n d N e e t ' s m u l t i p l e s c l e r o s i s , " m l e o u t " borderline personality disorder d i a g n o s i s , developmental and learning disorders, and chronic alcoholism "severe" a t step two i n the sequential proceedings. Tr. 25. A t step three, the ALJ found that N e e t ' s multiple sclerosis met Listing 11.09A, and "by reference" met Listing 11.09B on and after June 1 , 2 0 0 5 . Tr. 26. Regarding N e e t ' s credibility, the ALJ found that "there is ample reason to be cautious a c c e p t i n g t h e c l a i m a n t ' s a l l e g a t i o n s a t a l l m a t e r i a l t i m e s p r i o r to J u n e 1 , 2 0 0 5 . " T r . 2 8 . T h e A L J evaluated N e e t ' s RFC prior to June 1 , 2 0 0 5 as follows: 4 - F I N D I N G S AND R E C O M M E N D A T I O N
[Neet retains the ability to] perform simple tasks without special s u p e r v i s i o n b u t w i t h i n a b i l i t y to f o r m u l a t e i n d e p e n d e n t l y h i s o w n w o r k g o a l s a n d p l a n s , t o i n t e r a c t w i t h t h e p u b l i c o r to i n t e r a c t c l o s e l y w i t h c o w o r k e r s . His history o f a l c o h o l - r e l a t e d s e i z u r e s p r e c l u d e s w o r k a r o u n d d a n g e r o u s hazards. Tr. 27. T h e ALJ subsequently found that, prior to June 1 , 2 0 0 5 , N e e t could perform w o r k that exists i n s i g n i f i c a n t n u m b e r s i n t h e r e g i o n a l a n d n a t i o n a l economy.
n. 30. The ALJ therefore found Neet
n o t disabled at any time prior to June 1 , 2 0 0 5 , and disabled o n and after that date. Tr. 26, 30. STANDARD O F R E V I E W T h e reviewing c o u r t m u s t a f f i r m t h e Commissioner's d e c i s i o n i f t h e C o m m i s s i o n e r a p p l i e d proper legal standards and the findings are supported b y substantial evidence in the record. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Batson v. C o m m ' r o f the Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir. 2004). " S u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e " m e a n s " m o r e t h a n a m e r e scintilla, b u t l e s s t h a n a p r e p o n d e r a n c e . " R o b b i n s v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 882 (9th Cir. 2006». T h e reviewing C O U l t may n o t substitute its j u d g m e n t for that o f the Commissioner. Id.; E d l u n d v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152, 1156 (9th Cir. 200 I). Thus, where the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, the ALJ's conclusion must be upheld, even where the evidence can support either affirming or reversing the A L J ' s conclusion. Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005). However, the reviewing c o u r t must consider the entire record as a whole, weighing b o t h the evidence that supports and detracts from the Commissioner's conclusion, and may n o t affirm simply by isolating a specific quantum o f supporting evidence. Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1035 (9th Cir. 2007).
DISCUSSION Neet's primary claim is that the ALJ failed to develop the record regarding his psychological
5 - F I N D I N G S AND R E C O M M E N D A n O N
impairments and, thus, proffered incomplete questions t o the vocational e x p e l t as to t h e period p r i o r t o J u n e 1 , 2 0 0 5 . B a s e d o n t h o s e a l l e g e d e r r o r s , N e e t c h a l l e n g e s t h e A L I ' s c o n c l u s i o n a t s t e p five t h a t h e could p e r f o r m w o r k e x i s t i n g i n t h e r e g i o n a l a n d n a t i o n a l economy. A.
Examining Psychologist Dr. McConochie
N e e t first argues, a t s o m e l e n g t h , t h a t t h e A L J s h o u l d h a v e r e c o n t a c t e d e x a m i n i n g psychologist Dr. McConochie. T h e A L J is not required to recontact a n examining physician.
Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F . 3 d 9 4 7 , 9 5 8 (9th Cir. 2002). T h e regulations require a n A L J to recontact
a treating p h y s i c i a n , 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1512(e); 416.912(e), w h e n t h e evidence from t h e treating medical soource is inadequate to make a determination as to the claimant's credibility. Thomas, 278 F . 3 d at 958. Neet's a r g u m e n t therefore fails, and this court need n o t address fil1ther assertions t h a t t h e A L J s h o u l d have r e c o n t a c t e d Dr. M c C o n o c h i e .
B.
DDS Reviewing Psychologists
N e e t also contends t h a t t h e A L J e r r o n e o u s l y r e l i e d u p o n D i s a b i l i t y D e t e r m i n a t i o n S e r v i c e s ' s ( " D D S " ) r e v i e w i n g p s y c h o l o g i s t s b e c a u s e the D D S p s y c h o l o g i s t s i d e n t i f i e d n o m e n t a l d i s o r d e r s i n t h e i r assessment o f N e e t . PI. ' s Opening Br. I I . N e e t contends this o m i s s i o n supports his assertion t h a t t h e A L J failed t o d e v e l o p t h e r e c o r d . C o n t r a r y to N e e t ' s a s s e l t i o n , D D S psychologists c l e a r l y i d e n t i f i e d a m e n t a l disorder, N e e t ' s alcohol dependence. Tr. 2 4 9 , 2 5 7 . N o authority directs the A L J to d e v e l o p t h e record regarding D D S r e v i e w i n g physician opinions. N e e t ' s a r g u m e n t t h a t t h e A L I ' s r e l i a n c e u p o n D D S physicians c o n s t i t u t e s r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r fails.
11/
6 - FINDINGS AND R E C O M M E N D A T I O N
C.
D e v e l o p m e n t o f the R e c o r d R e g a r d i n g O n s e t D a t e
Finally, Neet contends that Dr. McConochie's repOlt aletted the ALJ to N e e t ' s psychological diagnoses, and that the ALJ should have secured more information regarding these diagnoses as they relate to the period prior to June 1,2005. P l . ' s Opening Br. 9. The Commissioner contends that the ALJ adequately addressed Dr. McConochie's opinion and that fUlther development is unnecessary. Def.' s Br. 6. T h e Commissioner offers no fUlther discussion o f t h e remaining medical r e c o r d i n d e f e n s e o f t h e A L J ' s decision. T h e burden o f establishing disability remains upon the claimant. Yuckert, 482 U.S. at 146;
Bayliss, 427 F.3d at 1217 (citing Meanel v. Apfel, 172 F.3d 1111, 1113 (9th Cir. 1999)). However,
the ALJ is not a "mere umpire," Higbee v. Sullivan, 975 F.2d 558, 561 (9th Cir. 1991), and the ALJ has a duty to develop the record when evidence is insufficient or when ambiguities arise. Bayliss, 427 F.3d at 1217. In Armstrong v. Comm'r, 160 F.3d 587, 590 (9th Cir. 1998), the Ninth Circuit specifically ordered an ALJ to call a medical expert when ambiguities arose concerning the disability onset date for a claimant who was determined to be disabled. This court must determine whether the ALJ provided a convincing rationale for selecting June 1 , 2 0 0 5 , as the onset date o f N e e t ' s disability. The A L J ' s finding that Neet was disabled o n that date cites "exhibit 15F" only. Tr. 26. Exhibit 15F refers to seventy-four pages o f the record, encompassing treatment between February 24, 2005, and September 27, 2005, at Sacred H e a t t Medical Center and another clinic identified only as " S o u t h Clinic." Tr. 294-366. The A L J ' s general reference to this exhibit provides no convincing rationale for selecting the June 1, 2005, onset date. T h e ALJ s u b s e q u e n t l y d i s c u s s e d b r o a d e r portions o f t h e m e d i c a l r e c o r d i n his a s s e s s m e n t o f 7 - FINDINGS A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N
Neet's "mental residual functional capacity" prior to June 1, 2005. T r . 2 7 - 2 8 . However, the ALJ failed to discuss any portion o f the medical record relating to N e e t ' s physical, rather than mental, condition. Id. The A L J ' s limited reference to N e e t ' s mental health treatment does not account for the progressive nature o f N e e t ' s multiple sclerosis and whether any o f N e e t ' s mental health symptoms might be attributable to his multiple sclerosis. This is relevant because multiple sclerosis is " a progressive disease . . . Later in the course o f the disease there may be extreme emotional lability." Kenneth N. Anderson e t al. eds., Mosby's Medical, Nursing, & A l l i e d Health D i c t i o n w y ( 5th ed. 1998). Fmthermore, "the diagnosis o f [multiple sclerosis] is difficult to make. A histOly o f exacerbation and remission o f symptoms . . . [is] characteristic." Id. The Commissioner has issued specific guidelines for identifying the onset date o f such progressive diseases. SSR 83-20 at *2 (available at 1983 WL 31249). T h e Commissioner
emphasizes, "Particularly i n the case o f slowly progressive impairments, it is n o t necessary f o r an
i m p a i r m e n t to have reached listing severity (i.e. to be decided on medical grounds alone) before o n s e t can be established. In such cases, consideration o f vocational factors can contribute to the
determination o f when the disability began." Id. (emphasis added). The Commissioner offers specific instructions for inferring the onset date o f a progressive disease: When an onset date is inferred from the medical evidence, the available medical evidence should be considered in view o fthe nature o f the impairment (i.e. what medical presumptions can reasonably be made about the course o f the condition). The onset date should be set on the date when it is most reasonable to concluded from the evidence t h a t the i m p a i r m e n t w a s s u f f i c i e n t l y severe t o p r e v e n t t h e individual from engaging in SGA (or gainful activity) for a continuous period o f at least 12 months or result i n death. Convincing rationale must be given for the date selected.
Id. at *3.
8 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
The A L I ' s onset date must be adequately supported in light o f this standard. Armstrong, 160 F.3d at 589. The A L J ' s citation to "exhibit 15" and his subsequent discussion o f N e e t ' s mental health treatment does not constitute sufficient explanation for selecting June 1 , 2 0 0 5 , as a n onset date for N e e f s multiple sclerosis.
In making an onset date determination in this circumstance the ALJ has an obligation to call
a medical expert. [d. at 590. Further proceedings are therefore necessary, and this c o m t need not p r e s e n t l y e v a l u a t e o b j e c t i o n s t o t h e v o c a t i o n a l e x p e l t ' s t e s t i m o n y a t s t e p five i n t h e s e q u e n t i a l analysis. REMAND T h e decision whether to remand for further proceedings o r f o r immediate payment ofbenefits is within the discretion o f the comt. Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d at 1172, 1178 (9 th Cir. 2000) (cert.
denied, 531 U.S. 1038 (2000)). The issue turns o n the utility o f further proceedings.
Here, the ALJ failed to develop the record regarding N e e f s onset date. In such instances, award o f benefits is inappropriate. Armstrong, 160 F.3d at 590-91 (remanding and instructing the A L J to call a medical expert); Harman, 211 F.3d a t 1 I 80 (remanding for further proceedings when the record does n o t support a n immediate finding o f disability). The matter must be remanded for f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s to o b t a i n m e d i c a l e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y r e g a r d i n g t h e o n s e t o f N e e t ' s d i s a b l i n g conditions. The ALJ m u s t then revise his RFC analysis, ifnecessaty, and apply the cOlTectmedicalv o c a t i o n a l guideline o r o b t a i n v o c a t i o n a l e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y r e g a r d i n g N e e t ' s w o r k p l a c e l i m i t a t i o n s prior to June 1, 2005. Finally, the ALJ must make adequate step four and five findings incorporating the indicated testimony.
III
9 - F I N D I N G S AND R E C O M M E N D A T I O N
CONCLUSION I n summary, this court finds that the A U did n o t adequately support his finding that Neet did n o t suffer from a disabling condition prior to June 1 , 2 0 0 5 . The Commissioner's decision must be reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with these Findings and Recommendation. RECOMMENDATION The Commissioner's decision that Neet did not suffer fi'om disability and is n o t entitled to benefits under Titles II o f the Social Security Act is n o t based upon COll'ect legal standards or supported by substantial evidence. The Commissioner's decision should be REVERSED and R E M A N D E D f o r further proceedings. SCHEDULING ORDER The above Findings and Recommendation will be referred to a United States District Judge for review. Objections, i f any, are due Janumy 2 3 , 2 0 0 9 . I f n o objections are filed, review o f the Findings and Recommendation will go under advisement o n that date. I f objections are filed, a response to the objections is due fourteen days after those objections are filed and the review o f the Findings and Recommendation will go under advisement with the District Judge o n that date. I T I S SO ORDERED. DATED this 8th day o f January, 2009.
PaulPapak U n i t e d States M a g i s t r a t e Judge
10 - FINDINGS A N D RECOMMENDATION
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
