VEGA v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, No. 2:2012cv03382 - Document 11 (D.N.J. 2013)
Court Description: OPINION. Signed by Judge Claire C. Cecchi on 11/26/13. (gmd, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY Civil v. OPINION COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. CECCHI, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Nancy Vega ("Plaintiff') appeals the final determination of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("Commissioner" or "Defendant") denying Plaintiff disability benefits under the Social Security Act. The Court has jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). This motion has been decided on the written submissions of the parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78. 1 For the reasons set forth below, the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (the "ALJ") is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Procedural Background on was July 15, denied not disabled. (R.32-44.) The Appeals Council on April 16, Commissioner. (R.1-8.) Plaintiff timely filed B. ALJ's decision the final judgment of the action. Personal and Employment Background Plaintiff has a high school degree and completed two years of college, ending in 1987. (R.156.) Plaintiff alleges that she became disabled on October 23, 2006, at which time she was forty years old. (R. 137.) She further alleges and that she left her career as a packing operator, which she had held for over a decade, due to this disability. (R.151-152.) Plaintiff's past employment involved operating machines that performed various packaging functions, making minor adjustments or repairs, and inspecting the finished products of the packaging. (R.152.) This job required her to spend three hours per day walking, sitting, or states I 2 was .) Another report by Dr. Irizarry-Rodriguez monthly, and added 2008 states he was t-..-"'"'lt- 1 r ¢n- vlla~nh+i- depression, and chronic fatigue syndrome ("CPS") to the list of diagnoses. (R.279.) He reported that Plaintiff was able to lift and ten pounds occasionally (defined as up to one-third of the day), stand and/or walk less than two hours per day, and sit less than six hours per day. (R.283.) Finally, he reported that Plaintiff's ability to push and pull was limited in the upper extremities. (R.284.) The measurements of Plaintiff's range of motion taken by Dr. Irizarry-Rodriguez show limitations in many areas. (R.285-286.) In November 2007, Plaintiff underwent a consultative neurological evaluation by Dr. Zaida Boria. (R.245.) Dr. Boria's report noted that Plaintiff had normal muscle tone, and that she could pinch, grasp, and write. (R.24 7.) Dr. Boria determined that the Plaintiff had lumbar pain with moderate restrictions range of motion, normal reflexes and sensorial exploration correlating (R.248.) could stand, measurements 3 common as an was to at same a to the June 1 intervertebral disk narrowing was changes." (R.275.) Dr. " and concluded that degenerative Mateo concluded that Plaintiff's condition "may sometimes be seen as a normal variant." (Id.) Plaintiff received a consultative examination from Dr. Marc Weber in February 2009. (R.31 0.) Dr. Weber notes that Plaintiff presented with pain in the neck, back, shoulders, and hands, and that she stated that her pain worsens in her back when she lies flat. (Id.) During her physical examination, Dr. Weber found that Plaintiff was in "no apparent distress" and appeared comfortable. (R.311.) Dr. Weber indicated tenderness upon palpation of the mid lumbar interspinous region and both trapezius muscles, and upon palpation of the mid lumbar interspinous regions and paraspinal muscles. Further, Dr. Weber found no tenderness upon palpation of the 4 to than signs. (Id.) Dr. Tiku's musculoskeletal examination that Plaintiff had a and some node at second DIP joint, pain in her hip joints the left knee and crepitation in the right. (Id.) Dr. Tiku also reviewed lab tests and x-rays provided by Plaintiff, and stated that they were all within normal limits. (R. 368.) III. LEGAL STANDARDS A. Standard of Review This Court has jurisdiction to review the Commissioner's decision under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Court is not "permitted to re-weigh the evidence or impose their own factual determinations," but must give deference to the administrative findings. Chandler v. Comm'r Soc. Sec., 667 F.3d 356,359 (3d Cir. 2011); see also 42 U.S.C. §405(g). Because conclusory statements are "beyond meaningful judicial review" a district court should remand if the ALJ does not set reasons are a 5 is come to a 360 (3d B. 1999). Determining Disability Under the statute, before obtaining DIB a claimant must demonstrate that she is unable to "engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than twelve months." 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(A). The statute requires that disability will be evaluated by the claimant's ability to engage in his previous work or any other form of substantial gainful activity existing in the national economy, taking into account the claimant's age, education, and work experience. 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(B). The SSA follows a five-step sequential evaluation to determine whether a claimant is disabled within the meaning of the statute. 20 C.P.R. 6 404.1520. First, the ALJ must determine IS one, at to IV. upon burden at at DISCUSSION reviewing all evidence in the record, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff was not disabled and denied her claim required five-step analysis. DIB. (R.44.) The ALJ arrived at his decision by following the the first step, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since October 23, 2006, the alleged onset date of her disability. (R.40.) At step two, the ALJ determined that the Plaintiff suffered from three severe impairments: "osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, and anemia." (Id.) At step three, the ALJ determined that the Plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled one found in the Listings. (Id.) The ALJ then determined that the Plaintiff had the RFC to perform sedentary work as defined in 20 C.F .R. 404.1567(a), except that she can occasionally kneel, crouch and crawL (R.41-43.) At step four, the ALJ determined that the Platintiffwas unable to perform were .) at 7 ) to a This Court to at 17. was that the ALJ failed to make reviewable findings regarding and depression. Additionally, the ALJ failed to make reviewable findings regarding Plaintiff's subjective complaints of pain. Therefore the Court affirms in part and vacates in part. case will be remanded with instructions to reopen the record on these issues and to render a new ruling after the parties have been heard. A. The ALJ Failed to Discuss The Alleged Psychiatric Impairments and CFS Although the ALJ' s summary of the medical evidence in the record is accurate and thorough he does not set forth the reasons for his decision regarding certain findings. This prevents meaningful review. Thomas, 625 F.3d at 800. Where there is conflicting probative evidence in the record, the Third Circuit recognizes "a particularly acute need for an explanation of the reasoning behind the ALJ's conclusions." Fargnoli v. Halter, 247 F.3d at 42. Here, the Court cannot error. reasons for the ALJ' s 1 1 or not set 1 so. a statement " On fatigue syndrome or merely disregarded the diagnosis. The Defendant that there is "a considerable overlap of symptoms between CPS and fibromyalgia." Pl. Opp. at 10 n.3. Nevertheless, the decision did not explain whether or why the ALJ credited Dr. Irizarry-Rodriguez's fibromyalgia diagnosis but not his diagnosis of CPS. Thus, without clarity regarding the ALJ's consideration of the CPS diagnosis or other evidence, this Court cannot meaningfully review the ALJ's decision. Cotter, 642 P.2d at 705. B. The ALJ Failed to Properly Evaluate Plaintiff's Credibility SSR 96-7 requires that when providing a credibility determination an ALJ must "give specific reasons for the weight given to the individual's statements." See also, Breslin v. Comm'r ~;;...;;;...;:;.__;;;;_.,;;...;;..;.. 7 C. 509 Appx. 149, 153 (3d Cir. 2013). The ALJ Properly Evaluated Medical Evidence of Anemia """""L""LAlL\.t. ...f. . . . l:"t:>,f#cl ¢l:"Cl 1 t'\lt:> 9 error not 1"'\1"rl ¢1"'\t""f ¢h a were no ..... ...,j..."'"'·" ............., ...... J,f"O. making his determination Plaintiffs the the specifically considered anemia (R.41 ), and mild anemia (R.42). Plaintiffs anemia more seriously impacted her work, and Plaintiff points at none. Thus, the ALJ's determination is supported by substantial evidence. D. Plaintiff's Other Contentions Plaintiffs remaining contentions regarding the RFC and step five depend on the resolution of the errors discussed above. However, the Court notes that with respect to the ALJ's rejection of Dr. IrizarryRodriguez' s opinions, the ALJ' s credibility determination may provide an articulated basis for discounting some of those opinions but not others. For example, the ALJ properly supports his discounting of Dr. Irizarry-Rodriguez's opinion regarding disc disease in that another physician's measurements set and V. he in not. CONCLUSION the f'"'"""'~::'~G!~.;o.. reasons, ALJ's decision that Plaintiff is not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act is hereby affirmed in part, vacated in part, and is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. An appropriate order accompanies this Opinion. DATED: November 26,2013 CLAIRE C. CECCHI, U.S.D.J. 11
]]>
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.
