Caldwell v. Berryhill et al, No. 4:2018cv00560 - Document 19 (S.D. Tex. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION denying 13 MOTION for Summary Judgment ; granting 17 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. The decision of the Social Security Commissioner is affirmed. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Peter Bray) Parties notified.(gclair, 4)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Caldwell v. Berryhill et al Doc. 19 United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED UM TED STATES DISTRICT CO URT SO U T H ER N D ISTW C T O F TEX A S H O U STO N D IW SIO N August 13, 2019 David J. Bradley, Clerk D avid Layne Caldw ell, Plaint? CivilA ction N o.11-18-560 N ancy A .B enyhill, A cting Com m issioner ofthe Social Security A dm inistration Defendant. M EM O R A N D U M A N D O PIN IO N Plaintiff D avid Caldwell appeals the Social Security A dm inistration Com missioner's finaldecision denying his application for socialsecurity benefits. (D.E.1.)Thepartiesconsented toproceedbeforetheundersigned magistratejudge pursuantto 28U.S.C.j 636(c)(1).(D.E.10.)PendingbeforethecourtisPlaintiff's M otion for Summary Judgment (D.E. 13) and Defendant's Cross-M otion for Summary Judgment. (D.E. 17.) Having considered the motions, tilings, and applicable law ,the courtfinds that the finaldecision of the Com m issioner should be affrm ed. 1. ProceduralPosture Caldwellapplied fordisability insurancebenefitsoù July 2,2014.(Tr.195.) Caldw ell claim ed he w as disabled since January 8, 2013, due to hepatitis C, bulging discs in his low erback,pain in his right elbow ,pain in his leA collarbone, Dockets.Justia.com and sinusproblems,among others.(Tr.220,224.) ln his application,Caldwell stated that he w as born in 1962.H e w orked as a restaurant assistant m anager, building engineer,m ailroom clerk,m arketing associate,and restaurantdishw asher. (Tr. 220, 225-26.) The Social Security Administration denied Caldwell's application on September 18,2014.(Tr.143-44.)Caldwellappealed on September 24, 2014. (Tr.149-50.) His application was denied upon reconsideration on October24,2014.(Tr.153-56.)Caldwellrequestedahearing. Administrative Law Judge ((tALJ'') Richard A.Gilbertheld a hearing on December2,2015,in Houston,Texas.(Tr.44-72.)TheALJissued a decision on January 27,2016,finding Caldwellnotdisabled.(Tr.7-28.)TheAppealsCouncil denied Caldwell'srequestforreview on M arch 22,2017.(Tr.1-5.)Caldwellfiled thiscomplaintin federalcourttoappealtheALJ'Sdecision.(D.E.1.) 2. LegalStandards A .Fiv- step P rocess The SocialSecurity A ctprovidesdisability insurance benefitsto peoplew ho have contributed to the program and have a physical or m ental disability.See 42 U.S.C.j423.lt defines disability as the Siinability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any m edically determ inable physical or m ental impairm ent...which haslasted orcan be expected to lastfor a continuousperiod ofnotlessthantwelvemonths.''See42U.S.C.j423(d)(l)(A). 2 The Com m issioner uses sequential, five-step approach to determ ine whether the claim ant is disabled.The claim antbears the burden of proof on the firstfoursteps,butthe Com m issionerbearsthe burden on the fifth step.Newton v. Apfel,209 F.3d 448,455(5th Cir.2000).A findingthattheclaimantisdisabled or notdisabled atany pointin the five-step review term inatesthe analysip.Johnson v. Bowen,851F.2d 748,751(5th Cir.1988). At step one,the AI-J m ustdetermine whether the claim ant is involved in substantial gainful activity.20 C.F.R. j 404.1520(b) (2016).A person who is working and engaging in substantialgainfulactivity is not disabled,regardless of themedicalfindings.Wren v.Sullivan,925F.2d 123,125 (5th Cir.1991). Atstep two,theAt,jdetermineswhetherany oftheclaimant'simpairments issevere.20 C.F.R.j404.1520(c)(2016).An impairmentisnotsevere Ssonly ifit is a slightabnormality having such m inim aleffectpn the individualthatitwould not be expected to interfere w ith the individual's ability to w ork, irrespective of age,education orwork experience.''Stone v.Heckler,75l F.2d 1099,1101 (5th Cir.1985).A person who doesnothaveasevereimpairmentisnotdisabled.Wren, 925 F.2d at 125. The ALJ nextdeterm ines,atstep three,ifthe claim ant's severe im pairm ents tçmeetg) or equallq a listed impairmentin appendix 1.''20 C.F.R.j404.1520(d) (2016);see 20 C.F.R.Part404,SubpartP,Appendix 1(2016)(the ç&taistings'').If al1the criteria ofa Listing are m et,the claim antis considered disabled.20 C.F.R . j404.1520(d)(2016). l B efore reaching the final tw o steps,the A LJ m ust assess the claim ant's residualfunctionalcapacity (RFC) ççbased on a11the relevantmedicaland other evidence.'' 20 C.F.R. j 404.1520/) (2016). An RFC assessment ddis a determinqtion ofthe m ostthe claim antcan stilldo despite hisphysicaland m ental lim itationsand isbased on a11relevantevidence in the claim ant'srecord.''Pcrcz v. Barnhart, 415 F.3d 457, 461. -62 (5th Cir. 2005) (quoting 20 C.F.R. j404.1545(a)(1)). A tstep four,the RFC isused to determ ine w hetherthe claim antcan perform pastrelevant w ork.Perez,415 F.3d at 462.lf the claim ant can perform theirpast work,theclaimantisnotdisabled.20 C.F.R.j404.152049 (2016).lfnot,theALJ proceedstostep five.20C.F.R.j404.1520(g)(1)(2016). A tstep tive,the A LJ determ inesw hetherthe claim ant can perform any other w ork by considering the claim ant's RFC and other factors, including age, education,and past w ork experience.Perez,415 F.3d at 462.lf the claim ant can perform otherwork available in thenationaleconom y,theclaim antisnotdisabled. B .SubstantialEvidence Standard ofR eview This court's ççreview of the ALJ'S disability determination is dhighly deferential':gitlaskgsqonly whethersubstantialevidencesupportsthedecision and 4 whetherthe correctlegalstandardsw ere employed.''Garcia v.Berryhill,880 F.3d 700,704 (5th Cir.2018).<dA decision is supported by substantial evidence if credible evidentiary choices orm edicalfindingssupportthe decision.''Salmond v. Berryhill,892 F.3d 812,817 (5th Cir.2018).(dsubstantialevidenceism orethan a m ere scintillabutlessthan apreponderance.''1d.Thereview ing courtisrequired to exam ine the record as a w hole to determ ine w hether substantialevidence supports theALJ'Sdecision.Randallv.Sullivan,956F.2d 105,109(5thCir.1992). 3. H earing and A dm inistrative R ecords A .H earing At Caldw ell's hearing,the ALJ heard testim ony from Caldwell,a M edical Expert(içM E'') and aVocationalExpert(1(VE'').(SccTr.44. -45.)TheM E testified thathe did notthink Caldw ellhad m edicalissues atthe tim e ofthe hearing that would give rise to the complained-of pains in his back.(Tr.65-66.) The M E testifed thatCaldwellhad stage-fourHepatitisC and otherimpairments.(Tr.6465.) The M E testised that Caldwell did not m eet the criteria for any listed impairments.Id.;see also 20 C.F.R.Part404,Subpt.PjApp.1,jj 5.05,12.08 (2016). The' VE wascalledtotestify.Caldwell'srepresentativeobjectedthattheVE lacked any basisto estimate thenumberofjobsin thenational,regional,and local economy.(Tr.68.)TheALJoverruled theobjection.(Tr.68.) The /QLJ asked the AcE yvhat yvork som eone with Caldwell's educationat background and age could do ifthey had the physicalresidualfunctionalcapacity (RFC)to do lightwork,occasionally liftand/orcany 20 potmds,frequently lift and/or cany 10 pounds, stand and walk about six hours out of an eight-hour workday w ith norm albreaks,sitforaboutsix hoursatan eight-hourworkday with nornialbreaks,occasionally clim b ram ps and stairs,never clim b ladders,ropes,or scaffolds,occasionally balance,stoop,kneel,crouch,and crawl.(Tr.68.)TheALJ lim ited the hypothetical w orker's m ental RFC to being able to understand, rem em ber, and cany out short and simple instnlctions, ' m aintain attention and concentration for extended periods;perform sim ple,routine,and repetitive tasks; and engage in superfcial interaction with the general public and occasional interaction with coworkersand supervisors.(Tr.69.) The VE testified that som eone with that RFC could not perform any of Caldwell'spastwork butcould work in three otherjobs:sllredder,laundry sorter, and m ailsorter.(Tr.69.)The VE gaveherestimationsofthenumberofjobsthat existin Texasand in thenationaleconomy foreachjob category.(See Tr.69.)The VE testifed thathertestim ony did notconflictw ith theDictionary ofOccupational Titles(($DOT'').(Tr.69.) Caldw ell's representative asked the V E w hat source of inform ation supported her estim ations.(Tr.70.)The VE answered thatshe used Skill' rllAN 6 Job BrowserPro.(Tr.70.)TheVE also testifed thatshe based hertestimony on her own experience placing people who had a similar RFC in thejobsthat she identised.(SeeTr.71) B .Post-hearing brief Following the hearing, Caldw ell subm itted to the AI,J a Post-l-learing M emorandum and Objections to the Vocational W itness's Testimony (Eiposthearing brief').Caldwellraised the following arguments:(1)the record doesnot show that the V E had the necessary expertise to give opinions on the num ber of jobsthatexistin the local,regional,ornationaleconomy;(2)Job BrowserPro is not one of the reliable data sources of w hich the SSA m ay take adm inistrative noticepursuantto20 C.F.R.j404.1566(*,and thereisnoknown,reliableway to determinethenumberofjobsby DOT code;(3)Caldwellcould notwork asamail sorter because he is restricted to sim ple,repetitive,and routine work,but a m ail sorter demands a higher reasoning level; (4) Caldwell could not work as a shredder,laundry sorter,or mailsorter because updated job market data show those jobs require more than occasional interaction with co-workers and supervisors;(5)updatedjob m arketdatashow thatjobsasashredderand laundry sorterareno longerperformed attheunskilled level;and (6)Caldwellshouldhave the opportunity to presentevidence ofthese inconsistencies in the V E testim ony at asupplementalhearing.(Tr.297-303.) 4. A nalysis The ALJ issued lzis decision on January 27,2016,finding thatC aldw ellw as notdisabled.(Tr.28.)The ALJalso overruled the objectionsthatCaldwellraised inhispost-hearingbrief.(SeeTr.11-15.) A.The A LJ'S five-step sequential analysis followed the correct Iegal rules,and substantialevidence supports his decision. (1)Step One. At step one, the ALJ correctly found that Caldwell had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged disability onset date of January 8, 2013.(SeeTr.17.) (2)Step Tvvo. A t step tw o, the A LJ found that Caldw ell has the follow ing severe im pairm ents: hepatitis C , chronic liver disease, back pain, left elbow pain, unspecified depressive disorder, anxiety, stim ulant disorder, and alcohol abuse, among others.(Tr.17.)Clavicle fracture wasthe only stated impairmentthatthe ALJfoundto benotsevere.(Tr.17-18.) The ALJrelied on m edicalrecordsbetw een D ecem ber2012,and Septem ber, 2014,to supporthisfinding on claviclefracture.(See,e.g.,Tr.504,512,515,533, 546-50.)The ALJ found that Caldwellreceived minimaltreatm entand wore a sling for a few w eeks,butno surgery w as recom m ended,and range ofm otion w as encouraged. (Tr. 18.) An X-ray exam in September 2014 also showed that Caldwell'sfracturewashealed.(SeeTr.533.) The A LJ'S finding atstep tw o is supported by substantialevidence. (3)Step Three. Atstep three,theA LJfound thatCaldw ell'sim pairm ents or com bination of im pairments did not m eet or m edically equal the severity of one of the listed im pairm ents in 20 C .F.R Part404,SubpartP,A ppendix 1.The A LJ appropriately consideredListing Sections1.02 (elbow pain),1.04 (back pain),5.05 (clzronicliver disease), 12.04 (affective disorders), 12.06 (anxiety), and 12.09 (substance addiction),and 14.08.(Tr.18.) The parties do notdispute thatthe ALJ'S step-three findings are supported by substantial evidence.The court's ow n review of the record supports the A LJ'S tindings. (4)RFC B efore turning to the finaltw o steps ofthe analysis,the A LJ determ ined that Caldw ellhad the follow ing RFC : perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1574b) and 416.9674b)exceptthe claimantcan neverclimb ladders,ropes, or scaffolds;can occasionally clim b ram ps and stairs,balance, stoop,kneel,crouch,and craw l;can understand,rem em ber,and cany out short and sim ple instructions; can m aintain attention and concentration for extended periods on sim ple tasks; is lim ited to sim ple, routine, repetitive tasks; and can have 9 superticial interaction with the generalpublic and occasional interaction w ith cow orkers and supervisors. (Tr.20.) ln reaching this fnding,the A LJ considered Caldw ell's function report,his medicalrecords9om 2013 to 2015,and Caldwell'stestimony atthe hearing.(See Tr.20-26,45-72,238-45,415-29,361-882.)The ALJalso consideredtheM E's testimony.(SeeTr.26,64-67.)TheserecordssupporttheALJ'Sfndings. A s opinion evidence, the A LJ considered the A gency consultative examiners'RFC assessments.(Tr.25.) Dr.Nancy Childs and Dr.San-san Yu assessed Caldw ell's physicalRFC.B oth doctors stated that C aldw ell can perform light work. (See Tr. 101-02, 118-19.) They also opined that Caldwell had m anipulative lim itations that prevented him from reaching overhead using left upper extremities buthe could reach frequently ddleftfrontand laterally.''(See Tr.81,130.)TheALJgavegreatweightto both Dr.Childsand Dr.Yu'sopinions on C aldw ell's RFC but found that tçm inim al or no evidence'' supported their opinionsthatCaldwellhad m anipulativelimitations.(Tr.25.)The ALJgavelittle weightto non-physician K im Perkins,LVN,and D r.Om arDim achkieh's opinions that Caldw ell should not lift m ore than 5ve pounds until his shoulder pain dim inished, tinding that their opinions w ere not consistent w ith the treating records.LseeTr.'25,700-01.) 10 The ALJ considered m entalRFC assessm ents by agency psychologists Dr. M atthew W ong and Dr.ThomasGeary.(Tr.25.)Both opined thatCaldwellcould understand, rem ember, and cany out only sim ple instructions, m ake sim ple decisions,attend and concentrate for extended periods,interact adequately w ith cow orkers and supervisors, and respond appropriately to changes in the routine work setting.(Tr.25,seeTr.82=84,97-99,115-17,131-34.)TheALJgavegreat w eightto D r.W ong and D r.G eary's opinions because he found thattheir opinions wereconsistentwiththemedicalrecords.(Tr.25.) Substantialçvidence supports the A LJ'S RFC determ ination. (5)Step Four. At step four, the A LJ found that Caldw ell could not perform any past relevantwork,relying on the VE's testimony.(See Tr.26,68-69.) Substantial evidence supportsthe ALJ'Sfnding atstep four. (6)Step Five. A t step five,the A LJ found that C aldw ell could find em ploym ent in other work existing in signifcantnumbers in the nationaleconomy.(Tr.26-27.) To support this determ inatipn, the AI-J considered Caldw ell's age, education, w ork experience,RFC,andtheVE'stestimony.(Tr.27.) The V E testified that som eone w ith Caldw ell's age, education, w ork experience,and RFC w ould be able to w ork as a shredder,laundry sorter,and m ail sorter.(Tr.27,68-69.)Pursuantto SocialSecurity Ruling 00-4p (2000),2000 W L 1898704 (ICSSR 00--4p''), the ALJ determined that the VE's testimony was consistentwith information contained in the DOT.(Tr.27.)The VE testified that she telied on Skill'rltAN Job Browser Pro. (Tr. 70.) The ALJ found that SIdIITRAN (çprovides a searchable copy of the D OT''and dscontains occupational groups to enable access to gthe Department of Labor'sl OES (Occupational EmploymentStatistics)data for specialized teaching occupations and other OES occupationsto which no DOT occupationshavebeen linked.''(Tr.12.)Based on this snding, the A LJ concluded that (ISIdIITR AN is an acceptable electronic version oftheDOT.''(Tr.12.) Substantial evidence supports the A LJ'S finding at step five. The A LJ'S findings at step five relied on the V E 's testim ony in addition to the A LJ'S ow n consideration of Caldwell's age, education,work experience, and RFC. (See Tr.2* 27.) The ALJ'S reliance on the VE testim ony is consistent with the regulations,w hich provide thatthe A gency ttm ay use the services of a vocational expert'' w hen the disability determ ination depends on w hether the claim ant's Ssw ork skillscan be used in otherw ork and the specific occupationsin which they can be used,or there is a similarly complex issue.'' 20 CFR jj404.1566($, 416.966($ (2016). 12 The V E based her opinions on her own experience placing individuals in jobswith anRFC similarto Caldwell's.(SeeTr.71.)TheVE alsoused SkiIITllAN Job Brow serPro- which the ALJconsidered to bean acceptable electronicversion oftheDOT- to estimate how many oftheidentifedjobsexisted in the localand nationaleconomy.(See Tr.12,70.)DOT is a reliable source of information of which theAdministration may takejudicialnotice.See20 CFR jj404.1566(d)(1), 416.966(d)(1)(2016). Substantialevidencesupportsthe ALJ'Sstep-fivefindings. B . C aldw ell's argum ents Iack m erit. Caldw ellcontends thatthe A LJ did notm eethis burden ofproof at step fsve because the A LJ'S decision did notaddresstw o points he raised in hispost-hearing brief.Caldw ell's argum ents do notm erita reversal. First,Caldw ellarguesthatthe ALJ ignored the ççvocationalopinion''thathe attached to hispre-hearing brief.(See Tr.300.)Thatopinion was drafted by M s. PaulaSantagati,athird-pao vocationalcounselorin M assachusetts.(SeeTr.34950.) Second,Caldwellargues that the ALJ did not address his objection that, according to the Departm entofLabor'sO *N ET,shredder,laundry sorter,and m ail sorter required a higher skilllevelthan thatof Caldw ell's R FC .C aldw ellisw rong. The AI,J's decision addressed and overruled each of the six objections that Caldwellraised in hispre-hearing brief.(See Tr.11-15.)The mere factthatthe 13 decision does not m ention particular evidence, such as M s.Santagati's opinion, does not m ean that the A LJ did not consider it.See B runson v.A strue, 387 F. App'x 459,461(5th Cir.2010). ln any case,the substance of Caldw ell's argum ents do not m erit a reversal. His argum entthatthe VE did notconsiderM s.Santagati's opinion atbestraises a contlict in the evidence.The Com m issioner has the f' ull discretion to resolve any contlictsin the evidence.Carey v.Apfel,230 F.3d 131,135 (5th Cir.2000).M s. Santagati's opinion contlicted w ith the V E 's testim ony.She opined that a person lim ited to occasionalinteraction w ith cow orkers and supervisors is precluded from any employment.(SeeTr.349-50.)M s.Santagati'sopinion doesnoteven mention C aldw ell.In contrast,the V E testised in response to the A LJ'S questions tailored to Caldwell'sRFc- thatsom eone with Caldwell'sRFC could w ork asa shredder, laundry sorter,ormailsorter.(See Tr.68-69.)The ALJ did noterrin according little orno w eightto M s.Santàgati's opinion. Caldw ell's challenge to the reliability ofthe D O T does not alterthis court's conclusion that substantial evidence supports the A LJ'S fndings at step five.See supra part4.A .(6).The VE and the ALJmay rely on the DOT to determine the levelofskillrequired ofaparticularjob.See SSR 00--4p (t((W qerely primarily on theDOT (including itscompanion publication,theSCO)forinformation aboutthe requirementsofwork in thenationaleconomy.'');seealso Walkerv.Berlyhill,No. 14 7:16-CV-00150-O-BP,2017 W L 6883894,at *5-6 (N.D.Tex.Dec.19,2017), reportand recom mendation adopted,N o.7:l6-CV-00150-O-BP,2018 W L 339307 (N.D.Tex.Jan.9,2018)(collecting cases).TheVE testifiedthatshredder,laundry sorter,and m ail sorter required skill levels within Caldw ell's RFC,relying on SIdIITRAN and her own experience placing people in jobs.(See Tr.71.) Her testimony wasconsistentwiththeDOT,which classifiesthosejobsasrequiringthe specifc vocational preparation level (&çSVP'') of 2 or less. (See Tr. 69-71.) Caldwell'sbroad challenge to the DOT'sreliability doesnotm eritarem and. 5. Conclusion The court's review of the adm inistrative record reveals that substantial evidence supports the A LJ'S findings at each of the five sequential steps. The ALJ'S decision denying Social Security benefits is supported by substantial evidence and is consistentw ith the law .There is no genuine issue of m aterialfact, and summary judgmentisappropriate.Fed.R.Civ.P.56(a),(c).Accordingly,the CourtGRANTS Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment and DEM ES Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment.The decision of the Social Security Com m issionerw illbe A FFIR M ED . 15 Thecourtwillenteraseparatefinaljudgment. SignedatHouston,TexasonAugust13 ,2019) Pet ray U nited StatesM agistrate Judge 16
]]>
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.
