Ford v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 5:2016cv00115 - Document 25 (W.D. Ky. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Lanny King on 6/9/2017; Because the Commissioner's final decision did not comport with applicable legal standards (Drummond), a remand is required for a new decision. Matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner for a new decision and further administrative proceedings deemed necessary and appropriate by the Commissioner. cc: Counsel (CDR)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Ford v. Commissioner of Social Security Doc. 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY PADUCAH DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. : CV LLK DANIEL FORD PLAINTIFF issio er of So ial Se urit DEFENDANT . NANCY A. BERRYHILL, A ti g Co MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This atte is efo e the Cou t o Plai tiff's o plai t seeki g judi ial e ie , pu sua t to U.“.C. § g , of the fi al de isio of the Co e efits. The fa t a d la su is ipe fo dete issio e de i g his lai fo “o ial “e u it disa ilit a ies of Plai tiff a d Defe da t a e at Do kets a d , a d the ase i atio . The pa ties ha e o se ted to the ju isdi tio of the u de sig ed Magist ate Judge to dete i e this ase, ith a appeal l i g efo e the “i th Ci uit Cou t of Appeals. Do ket . Due to a la k of e ide e of i p o e e t i Plai tiff s edi al o ditio suppo ti g depa tu e f o the p io ad i ist ati e la judge s ALJ s fi di g that Plai tiff a o l o asio all push a d pull ith the ilate al lo e e t e ities, the u e t ALJ s de isio did ot o po t ith appli a le legal sta da ds Dru o d v. Co ’r . The efo e, the Cou t ill ‘EMAND this atte to the Co issio e fo a e de isio . Dru Dru o d v. Co e ed i fi di g that D u p io ALJ's fi di g that D u ’r, F. d th Ci . ’r held that the ad i ist ati e la judge ALJ o d had a esidual fu tio al apa it ‘FC fo ediu o k i light of the o d had a ‘FC fo sede ta o k. The e o as due to a la k of e ide e of i p o e e t i D u o d v. Co o d s edi al o ditio . Dockets.Justia.com Dru o d as ased o p i iples of fai ess to p ote t lai a ts f o a it a e adjudi atio s of ‘FCs i su se ue t lai s a d ad i ist ati e es judi ata. Just as a so ial se u it lai a t is a ed f o elitigati g a issue that has ee p e iousl dete Co issio e . Id. at i ed, so is the . I adopti g A uies e e ‘uli g e og ized the appli a ilit of Dru , WL , the “o ial “e u it Ad i ist atio o d i ases a isi g ithi the “i th Ci uit: Whe adjudi ati g a su se ue t disa ilit lai ith a u adjudi ated pe iod a isi g u de the sa e title of the A t as the p io lai , adjudi ato s ust adopt su h a fi di g f o the fi al de isio a ALJ o the Appeals Cou il o the p io lai i dete i i g hethe the lai a t is disa led ith espe t to the u adjudi ated pe iod u less the e is e a d ate ial e ide e elati g to su h a fi di g o the e has ee a ha ge i the la , egulatio s o uli gs affe ti g the fi di g o the ethod fo a i i g at the fi di g. ‘ead togethe , Dru o d a d A uies e e ‘uli g esta lish that a ALJ is ou d the p io ALJ s ‘FC fi di g u less the e is e a d ate ial e ide e of a ha ge i p o e e t i the lai a t s edi al o ditio o a ele a t ha ge i the la . A Dru O Ma , o d error o urred. , hile o ki g as a de kha d o a a ge, a a le oke a d st u k Plai tiff i the left leg. This esulted i a t a s e se f a tu e ithi the id fe o al shaft, ith so e deg ee of o i utio . The i ju e ui ed ultiple o e ti e su ge ies. Ad i ist ati e ‘e o d A‘ , p. The p io ALJ fou d that Plai tiff as disa led f o Ma , ut that, as of No e e , jo s i the atio al e o o , he had e o e ed suffi ie tl to pe fo , th ough No e a sig ifi a t u offi e lea e , lau d o ke , doo keepe /g eete . A‘, p. The p io ALJ fou d that egi i g o No e e , e . , , e of light . Plai tiff is li ited to o l o asio al pushi g/pulli g ith the ilate al lo e e t e ities, i pa t, due to a ulgi g dis at L “ ith possi le left sided eu al fo a i al e oa h e t a d likel i pi ge e t of the left “ e e oot. A‘, p. . The u e t ALJ ide tified o e ide e that this Plai tiff a o pe fo edi al o ditio had i p o ed su h that o k e ui i g o e tha o asio al pushi g/pulli g ith the ilate al lo e e t e ities. The u e t ALJ s de isio ited the egati e Ap il e a i atio fi di gs of Mi hael Meade, M.D., i suppo t of a o lusio that Plai tiff o lo ge e ui es the postu al li itatio s ide tified the p io ALJ i.e., Plai tiff is o lo ge li ited to o asio al stoopi g, k eeli g, ou hi g, a d a li g . “ee u e t ALJ s de isio at A‘, p. efe i g to D . Meade s fi di gs at A‘, pp. the ALJ, [t]he lai a t s o fo t ith sitti g a d sta di g, i additio to his o . A o di g to al a ge of otio , suppo ts the fu tio al apa it fi di g of o postu al li itatio s, as opposed to the p e ious ALJ de isio that fou d postu al li itatio s. A‘, p. While o . al a ge of otio a d o fo t ith sitti g a d sta di g a p o ide a asis fo dis ou ti g the p io ‘FC fi di g of postu al li itatio s, the do ot add ess the p io fi di g of li itatio i a ilit to push/pull ith the ilate al lo e e t e ities. D . Meade did ot pe fo a test o e o d a o se atio suppo ti g a depa tu e f o the p io fi di g. O the o t a , D . Meade fou d that: The patie t has lo a k pai ost likel elated to dege e ati e dis disease although the patie t does ha e so e adiatio , u ess, a d ti gli g i to the left lo e e t e it , su gi al i te e tio ost likel ill ot e of e efit at this ti e. Co side i g he does ha e lo e e t e it i ol e e t, I e o e d e aluatio a spi e su geo i o de to esta lish a aseli e i ase the patie t s o ditio dete io ates. A‘, p. . A M‘I f o Fe ua sho ed: L “ : Ce t al lo al su liga e tous dis he iatio . This fi di g as ot p ese t o a p e ious M‘I. A‘, p. . I fa t, D . Meade fou d so e a iatio f o o al a ge of otio . Plai tiff s e i al spi e e te sio as deg ees out of deg ees o al , lu a spi e fle io as deg ees out of deg ees, a d left k ee fle io as deg ees out of deg ees. A‘, pp. . I dete i i g that Plai tiff is li ited to o asio al pushi g/pulli g ith the lo e e t e ities, the p io ALJ o side ed the No e e fi di gs of Ho g o Liu, M.D. “ee p io ALJ s de isio at A‘, pp. . To the The e is a la k of e a d ate ial e ide e suppo ti g depa tu e f o the p io ALJ s fi di g that Plai tiff a o l o asio all push/pull ith the ilate al lo e e t e ities due to a lo a k i pai e t ith adi ula s pto s. This o stituted a Dru A “o e Dru additio al Dru o d e o s a e ha o d e o . o d error as har less. less. The e a e th ee asi atego ies of ha less Dru o d e o s. Fi st, e e if the ALJ did ot ide tif e a d depa tu e f o the p io ‘FC, the e o as ha tha the p io o e. See Washi gto v. Co , ate ial e ide e of a ha ge a a ti g less if the u e t ‘FC as o e lai a t fa o a le ’r, No. : , WL , at * M.D. Te . Ma . Whe e a ALJ i a su se ue t de isio e de s a ‘FC fi di g that is o e est i ti e tha the ALJ i a p io de isio , the lai a t has o ause fo e a d e e if the su se ue t ALJ failed to p ope l appl the p e lusi e effe t of the ea lie de isio , e ause a e o o ks to the lai a t's e efit ; Clayto v. Co ’r, No. : , WL , at * E.D. Mi h. “ept. , [W]he e a late [‘FC] is o e est i ti e tha the p io ‘FC, a Plai tiff is u a le to de o st ate the p ejudi e o ha e essa to a hie e a e a d ; Castrovi ci v. Co at * N.D. Ohio Ma . , o d ; Whitaker v. Co ’r, No. The Cou t is so e hat pe ple ed est i ti e ‘FC tha that of the CV , WL , [T]he ALJ i the i sta t ase a tuall fou d Plai tiff o e li ited e e tio all tha the ALJ i the p io ase due to additio al i pai f o D u ’r, No. : H‘W, WL e ts, hi h diffe e tiates this ase , at * E.D. K . Jul , Plai tiff's o te tio as the ALJ i this ase fou d a o e de isio . … The Cou t fi ds o iolatio of D u o d . “e o d, although the u e t ‘FC a appea to e less lai a t fa o a le, i fa t, it a e su sta tiall the sa e as the p io o e i light of the defi itio s i the “o ial “e u it ‘uli gs ““‘s a d e te t the Plai tiff s a F. App e ide e si u e t ALJ elied o D . Liu s fi di gs i suppo t of a fi di g of edi al i p o e e t elated to ilit to push/pull ith the lo e e t e ities, the elia e as u pe suasi e. See Rudd v. Co ’r, , th Ci . I dete i i g hethe the e as a Dru o d e o , the fo us is o the e the p io ALJ s de isio . othe sou es – esulti g i a ha , at * “.D. Ohio No . less Dru , o d e o . See Hill v. Co [““‘] defi es sede ta ’r, No. : , WL o k as e ui i g sitti g fo a total of hou s pe hou o kda a d e taili g o sig ifi a t stoopi g. The efo e, [g]i e [the ALJ s] dete i atio that Plai tiff is li ited to a est i ted a ge of sede ta jo s, the slight a iatio f o the p io ‘FC i.e., eli i ati g a e ui e e t that Plai tiff sta d a d/o alk fo o o e tha hou s i a da , a d eli i ati g stoopi g a d ou hi g est i tio s , ould e dee ed ha Co , at * “.D. Ohio Ma ’r, No. : , WL Plai tiff's [‘FC] easo a l p e luded li , less ; Yates v. [The ALJ s] assess e t of i g ladde s a d s affolds [as fou d p e ludi g haza ds su h as u p ote ted heights a d p e luded the p io ALJ] o ple , detailed, a d itte i st u tio s li iti g Plai tiff to si ple tasks . Thi d, a Dru o d e o a e ha less i light of the o atio al testi o a d the e ui e e ts of jo s as des i ed i the Di tio a of O upatio al Titles DOT . If the u e t ‘FC is less lai a t fa o a le ut the jo s elied o the u e t ALJ i suppo t of his/he fi di g of la k of disa ilit do ot e ui e the additio al apa it , a e o as ha GWU, WL , at * E.D. K . Ju e , less. See Bra ha v. Co [T]hese o e se e e e tal est i tio s e e p ese ted to [the] Vo atio al E pe t [ ho] ide tified a sig ifi a t u pe fo ha ’r, No. e of jo s hi h ould e ed. The efo e, a e o the ALJ i ot adopti g the ea lie e tal est i tio s ould appea less ; Barker v. Co ’r, No. : CV , WL , at * N.D. Ohio Jul , [A] e o ith espe t to this [fa t that the p io ‘FC li ited Plai tiff to o i te a tio ith the pu li ] is ha pu li less e ause the VE testified that the th ee jo s he ide tified … e ui ed o i te a tio ith the ; Yates v. Co ’r, No. : , WL , at * “.D. Ohio Ma also ot de o st ated that the e lusio of a li g o li , Plai tiff has i g ould ha e plausi l ha ged the de isio . To the o t a , the [DOT] spe ifies that the jo s ide tified the o atio al e pe t … e ui e o a li g o li su h e o as ha i g. Co se ue tl , e e if [the ALJ] should ha e i luded o a li g o li i g, less . Fro a har less error ie poi t, the RFCs i this ase differed o l ith respe t to Plai tiff’s a ilit to push/pull ith the ilateral lo er e tre ities. The p io ALJ fou d that Plai tiff has the follo i g ‘FC: Afte a eful o side atio of the e ti e e o d, the u de sig ed fi ds that, as of No e e , , the lai a t has had the esidual fu tio al apa it to pe fo light o k as defi ed i CF‘ . e ept that he should o l o asio all push a d pull ith the ilate al lo e e t e ities. He a o asio all li a ps a d stai s, ut should e e li ladde s, opes, a d s affolds. He a o asio all stoop, k eel, ou h, a d a l. He should a oid all e posu e to haza dous a hi e a d heights. Fu the , due to p o le s ith eadi g, the lai a t ould e ui e o al i st u tio s. P io ALJ s de isio , A‘, p. . The u e t ALJ fou d that Plai tiff has the follo i g ‘FC: Afte a eful o side atio of the e ti e e o d, the u de sig ed fi ds that the lai a t has the esidual fu tio al apa it to pe fo light o k as defi ed i CF‘ . a d . he e the lai a t lifts o a ies pou ds o asio all a d pou ds f e ue tl , sta ds o alks fo si of eight hou s du i g the o kda , a d sits fo si of eight hou s du i g the o kda . The lai a t s o k is li ited to si ple, u skilled “VP o o k. Cu e t ALJ s de isio , A‘, p. . All of the li itatio s ide tified i the fi st se te e of the u e t ALJ s ‘FC fi di gs, a o e, a e si pl pa t of the defi itio of light o k. See ““‘ ALJ fou d that Plai tiff a pe fo , the full a ge of light o k WL . I othe o ds, the u e t i us the postu al a d othe li itatio s fou d the p io ALJ a d has the e tal li itatio s des i ed i the se o d se te e. Fo the easo s e plai ed elo , f o a ha less e o pe spe ti e, the o l sig ifi a t diffe e e et ee the ‘FCs is that the u e t ALJ depa ted f o the p io ALJ s fi di g that Plai tiff a o l o asio all push/pull ith the ilate al lo e e t e ities. The u e t ALJ fou d that Plai tiff is ot disa led e ause he etai s the a ilit to pe fo his past ele a t o k as a i e p epa atio a hi e te de a d othe jo s that e ist i sig ifi a t u e s i the atio al e o o . , WL . , . A‘, pp. WL . “pe ifi all , Plai tiff a pe fo , so te DOT . , WL the jo s of asse , a d ha d pa ke DOT . Id. The o atio al e pe t testified that a i di idual a pe fo these jo s assu i g he has so e assista e i o pleti g the jo appli atio s ithout ei g a le to ead o A o di g to ““‘ suffi ie t to pe fo p, le DOT WL ite. A‘, pp. . , the a ilit to hea a d u de sta d si ple o al i st u tio s is u skilled o k. The efo e, i light of the o atio al testi o a d ““‘ the e is o sig ifi a t diffe e e et ee the p io ALJ s fi di g that Plai tiff p, ould e ui e o al i st u tio s a d the u e t ALJ s fi di g that he is li ited to … u skilled … o k. A o di g to the DOT, the jo s of asse le , so te , a d ha d pa ke e ui e o li i g, k eeli g, ou hi g, o a li g a d do ot i ol e e posu e to haza dous a hi e a d heights i.e., o i g e ha i al pa ts, ele t i sho k, high e posed pla es, adiatio , e plosi es, to i austi he i als, o othe e i o e tal o ditio s . The asse le a d so te jo s e ui e o stoopi g, a d the ha d pa ke jo e ui es o l o asio al stoopi g. The ad i ist ati e e o d o tai s o e ide e i di ati g hethe Plai tiff s past ele a t o k as a i e p epa atio a hi e te de a d the jo s of asse le , so te , a d ha d pa ke e ui e o e tha o asio al pushi g/pulli g ith the ilate al lo e e t e ities. The o l e e si le Dru o d e o , the efo e, o e ed Plai tiff s a ilit to push/pull ith the ilate al lo e e t e ities. Plai tiff has failed to pro e that his i telle tual disorder satisfies Listi g § . IQ testi g i Ap il Plai tiff is e titled to a o lusi e p esu ptio of disa ilit if, a o g othe thi gs, he has a full s ale IQ s o e of i di ated that Plai tiff has a full s ale IQ of . A‘, p. . o elo , sig ifi a t defi its i adapti e fu tio i g, a d e ide e that the lo IQ s o e a d defi its i adapti e fu tio i g ega p io to … attai e t of age . Listi g § . B , Appe di of the egulatio s. The ALJ fou d that the e e e o s hool e o ds o othe e ide e that o fi a diag osis of [ o de li e i telle tual fu tio i g] o i telle tual disa ilit , o a lo I.Q. p io to [ he ] the lai a t tu ed ea s old. ALJ s de isio , A‘, p. . While Plai tiff does ot dispute this fi di g, he a gues that [i]t ust e kept i i d that the lai a t as u ep ese ted at the hea i g efo e the ALJ. The ALJ has a espo si ilit to o tai ele a t e ide e he e aluati g the lai of a u ep ese ted lai a t. The ALJ failed to do this. Do ket , p. . The Co issio e i sists that – hethe he ep ese ted hi self o ot – the u de of p oof as o Plai tiff to sho that he satisfied the Listi g. Do ket , p. . The Cou t eed ot esol e this dispute e ause a e a d is e ui ed fo i depe de t easo s Dru o d . The e is o legiti ate h , upo e a d, Plai tiff ho is o ep ese ted ou sel should ot e affo ded a oppo tu it to o tai his s hool e o ds i suppo t of a lai that he is disa led pu sua t to Listi g § . . Co lusio s Be ause the Co Dru issio e s fi al de isio did ot o po t ith appli a le legal sta da ds o d , a e a d is e ui ed fo a e de isio . The efo e, this atte is ‘EMANDED to the Co issio e fo a e de isio a d fu the ad i ist ati e p o eedi gs dee ed e essa a d app op iate the Co issio e . June 9, 2017 The e ide e is i suffi ie t to suppo t a judi ial a a d of e efits e ause, e e if Plai tiff a o l o asio all push/pull ith the lo e e t e ities, the p io ALJ ide tified a sig ifi a t u e of jo s i the atio al e o o o siste t ith that fi di g. A‘, p. .
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
