Huff v. Berryhill, No. 7:2018cv00054 - Document 18 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 5/21/2019. (ck)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERK'S OFFICEU. S.DI ST.COURT AT ROANDKE,VA FILED MA%f2 1225 IN Tc U NITED STA TES D ISTRICT COURT FOR THE W ESTERN DISTRICT OF W RGINIA ROAN OKE D IV ISION JU C.DUDLEM C ERK BY: E DO UGLA S W .HUFF, Plaintiff, CivilActionXo.7:18CV00054 M EM OR AND UM O PIM ON NAN CY A .BERRYH ILL,Acting Com m issionerofSocialSecurity, By:Hon.Glen E.Coprad SeniorUnited StatesDistrictJudge Defendant. Plaintiffhasfiled thisaction challenging the finaldecision ofthe Com m issionerof Social Security denying plaintiffs claim s for disability insurance beneûts and supplem ental security incomebenefksundertheSocialSqcurityAct,asamended,42U.S.C.jj416(i)and423,and42 U.S.C.j1381etseg.s respectively. Jurisdiction pfjhiscourtispursuantto42U.S.C.j405(g) . and 42 U.S.C.j 1383(c)(3). Asretlected by the memoranda and argumentsubmitted by the parties,the issuesnow beforethe courtarewhethertheCom m issioner'sfnaldecision issupported by substantialevidence,orwhetherthere isççgood cause''to necessitate rem anding the casz to the . Commissionerforfurtherconsideration. See42U.S.C.j405(g). The plaintiff,Douglas W .H uff,w as born on June 11, 1968,and completed the seventh grade. (Tr.89). Mr.Huffhaspreviously worked asan auto body repairerand painter,spot welder,wiring electrician,sheetmetalproduction employee,and fabricator. (Tr.22). H .elast Huff v. Berryhill wqrkedonaregularandsustained.basisin 2008. (Tr.367,399). On September25,2013,Mr. Doc. 18 Hufffiled applicationsfordisability insurance beneftsand supplem entalsecurity incom e benefits. In sling his currentclaim s,M r.H uffalleged thathe becam e disabled foral1form s ofsubstantial gainfulem ploym enton'February 10,2008,due to low erback pain,leftleg pain and num bness,a Dockets.Justia.com lealming disability, high blood pressure,and depression. (Tr.361,411). Atthe time ofan . administrativehearing onApril5,2016,theplaintiffam ended hisapplicationsso asto retlectan alleged disability onjetdateofJuly 17,2012. (Tr.86). Mr.Huffnow maintainsthathehas rem ained disabled; to the presenttim e. W ith respectto his application fordisability insurance benefks,therecord revealsthatM r.Huffmettheinsured stamsrequirementsoftheActtilrough ' . the fourth quarterof2012,butnotthereafter. See generally 42 U.S.C.jj 416(i)#nd 423(' a). Consequently,theplaintiffisentitiedtoaperiodofdisabilityanddisabilityinsurancebenefitsonly ifhehasestablished thathebecam : disabled forallform sofsubstantialgainfulem ploym enton or . beforehisdatelastinsured,Decernber31,2012. M r.H ufps applications were denied upon initialconsideration and reconsidefation. H e thepreqbestedandreceivçdaJ.. :novohearingandreview beforeanAdminisirativeLpw Judge. ln an opinion dated Jqnuary 3,2017,theLaw Judgealso determined,afterapplying thefve-step sequentiAlevaluation process,thatM r.Huffisnotdisabled. See20 C.F.R.jj404.1520 and 416.920.1 The Law Judge found thatM r. Huffsuffersfrom severalsevereim pairm ents,including ' lum bar degenerative disc diseM e, hypertension, headaches, depression, anxiety, cognitive disorder,borderline intelleçmalfunctioning,and pol ysubstance abuse disorder,butihatthese . im painnents do not, either indiyidually or in com bination, m eet or m edically equal the . wquirementsofalistedimpairment. (Tr.14). TheLaw JudgethepassessedM r.Huffsresidual ftmctionalcapacity aqfollpws: lTheproces' srlquirestheLaw Judgeto ùonsider,in sequence,whetheraclaimant:(1)isengaged in sub.stant ialgainfulactivity;(2)hasasevereimpairmentjfl)hasanimpairmentthatmeetsorequalsthereiuirements ofalistedimpairment;(4)canretul'ntohispastrelevantwork;and(5)ifnot,whetherhecanperform otherworkinthe nationaleconomy. 20C.F.R.jj404.1j20and416.920. Ifadecisioncanbereachedatanystepinthesequential evaluationprocess,furtherevaluationisunnecessary. Id. 2 After careful consider>tion of the entire record,the underàigned Gnds that the claim ant has the residual functional capacity to . perform likhtwork asdefinqd in 20 C.F.R.(jjq404.1567(b)and 416.967419,excepthe can stand or walk for two hours in an eight-hourworkday,andsitforsixhpursinaneijht-hourworkday. H ow ever,the claim antcénnotperform these activltiesformorethan 30 minuyesata time and requirestheability to sitorstand atwill. Tlke claimap'tcan occasitmally balance,stoop,crouch,crawl,and climb ramps and stairs,buthe can neverclimb ladders,ropes,or scaffolds. 'H e can occasionally operate footcontrols w ith his left ... lower extremity and frequently With hisright lower extremity. FurtheN ore,theclaimantcan frequently handle orGngerobjects but shpuld avoid concentrated exposure to extreme tempqratures, vibrations,énd Woikplace hazards. H e is also lim ited to sim ple, routino,andrepetitivetasksinalow-stressenvironment(definedas hakingonly occasionaldecision makinq orchangesin theFork setting) wlth onl# occasional interactlon with thç public or co-w orkers. . (Tr.16). Given such aresidualfunctionalcapacity,and afterconsidering testimony from a : . vodationalexpert,theIiw JudgedejenninedthatMr.Huffisunaàletoperform any ofhispast . relevantwork. (Tr.'22). liowever,the Law'Judge found that Mr.Huff retains suffcient functional capacity to perform other work roles existing in signiicant num ber in the national 2 . economy. (Tr.23). Acçordipgly,theLaw JtldgeconcludedthatM r.Huffisnotdisabled,and that he is not entitlqd to benefks under either federalprogram . See cenerally 20 C.F.R. ?. . ' ' ' . 55404.1520(g)and4.18;9z0(g). 'TheLaw Judge'sopinionwasadoptedastiw fualdecision of . theComm issioùerbythe SociqlSecurijy Administration'sAppealsCouncil. Havinj exhausted all lable adm inistrativeremedies,Mr.HuffV snow appealedtothiscourt. , avai , 1 , ' 1 ' ' v W hile plaintitfn' ia' y be dlsabled forcertain forms of emplèyment,the crucialfactual ddennination is whejherplaintiff is disabled forallfonus of substantialgainfulemployment. See 42 U.S.C.jj423(d)(2)and 1382c(a). There are fourelementsofproofwhich mustbe considéredinmakingsuchananalysis. Theseelementsaresummariyqdasfollows:(1)objective m edicalfacts and clinicalfindings;(2)thebpini onsapd conclusionsoftreatingphysicians;(3) . 3 subjectiveevidenceofphysicalmanifestationsofimpairments,asdescribedthroughaclaitant's testimony;and(4)theclaimant'sçducation;vocationalhistory,residualskills,andage. Vitekv. Finch,438.17.2d 1157,1159-. 60(4thCir.1971);Undenvtmdv.Ribicofll298F.2d 850j811(4th Cif.1962). On appeal,M r.Hpff raises severalarguments,including thatthe Law Judge erred in assessing hism entalresidualfunctional.capacity and presented a legally insuo cienthypothetital to the vocationalexpert. Afterreview ing the record and considering the parties'argum ents,the courttsnds Gçgood cause''to rem and the case to the Com m issioner for further developm entand consideration. See42U.S.C.j405(g). Thé 'record .yeveals that M r. Huff has em otional and cognitive im pairm ents that . signiGcantly affecthi!ability to fpnction. H e received specialeducation servipes in schooland onlf cqmpleted thesevbnth grade. (Tr.71,89).In 2010,M. r.Huffunderwentaconsultative psycholpgical evaluation in connection w ith a prior application for benefks, wlpich included . intelligence and achievem ent testing. Based on the test results,the consultative psychologist . opined th>tplaintiff has borderline intellectualfunctioning and learning disabilities in reading, spelling,and arithmetic. (Tr,373). The psychologistalso diagnosed Mr.Huffwith major . depressiveorderofmoderateintensityandpolysubstancedependenceandabuse. (Tr.373). Mr. .. Huffhas since been ' treated for anxiety and depression by his prim ary carè' physician,Dr.Laura . Cieraszynski. (Tr, . ,875 880).,l n 2015,Dr.Cieraszynskireferred pl aintiff to Carilion Clinic ': , qp . -' . ..., ., . : .. t . Roanoke Negrology fo. fa copsgltative examination. An MR.Iofthe jjr.ain showe(jaareàs ojincreased-12signalsihthedkepcerebralwhitematter-'' (Tr.786). TheneurologistreferredMr: l'JufftoDr.AnnSollingerforaneuropsychologicalevaluation. Dr.Sollingerdiagnosedplaintiff W ith acdgnitive disorderand a dupressive disorder. (Tr.902). Shç stlbsequently noted that 4 plaintiffs sym ptom s of depression and psychological distress E'm ay interfere w ith cognitive ' . funçtioningonadailybasis.'' (Tr.916). A statèagency psychologist Dr.JulieJennings,completedtwo formsregardingplaintiffs . mentalhealth:aPsychi gtricReview Techniquefprm and aM entalResidualFunctionalCapacity c ' . Assessmentform. Onth.efirstfprm,Dr.Jenningsnotedthatplaintiffhasmoderatediffkultiesin maintaining concqntration,persistence QrpAce. tTr.140). On theseçond form,Dr.Jennings opiped thatM r.Huff'ha smoderate limitgtions in the category ofççsustained concentration and ' . . persistence-'' (Tr.146). M ore specifcally,Dr.Jennings noted thatM r.Huff's ability to maihtain attention and concentration forextendedneriodsismoderatelv lim ited.asishistsability ' . to com plete a norm alw orkday and w orlcweek w ithoutintenuptions from psychologically based symptom s and to perfol'm ata consistentpace w ithoutan unreasonable num ber and length ofrest . pqriods. '' (Tr.146). Cpnsistent.with Dr.Jennings'assessment,the Law Judge found atstep . three of the sequential evaluation process that plaintifrs im pairm ents result in ççm oderate diffkulti' es''withççconcentration,persistence,orpace-'''(Tr.15). lngssesslngplaintiffsrestdqualfunctionalqapacity(ççRFC''),theLaw Judgeindicatedthat ' hehadgivenGgreatweight''toDr.Jermings'opinions. (Tr.20). However,theLaw Judgedid notexpreshly referehce plaintiffs m oderate lip itations in concenttation,persistence,and pade intàeRFC assesslentorthehypotheticalquestion pojedtothevocationalexpert. Instead,the Law Judge lim i ted M tr$Huf.fto ttsim ple,routine,and repetitivetasks in a low -stressenvironm ent'' . :: .'. . ' . . . . ' With ççonly occasionalinteraçtiop w ith the publicorco-workers.' ' (T!'.16).' . . In the court'sview ,the difficulty w ith theLaw Judge'sevaluation pfM r.H ufrsem otional ahd cognitive im p.airm ents is two-fold. First,the Law Judge's opinion appears to correlate an . L' ability to perform simple tasks w ith the ability to m aintain concentration,persistence,and pace. 5 On page 9 ofhisopiniop,theLaw Judge sum m arily states,w ithoutexplanation,thathe accounted fgl'anynon-exertionatrestrictions<çby form ulating theresidu>lfunctionalcapacity above,w hich , lipitstheclaimanttosimple,unskilled,andlessthan lightwork-'' (Tr.19). ' rhecourtagrees withtheplaintiffthàttàeLawludge'scoùclusoryanalyëisconsictswithtliedecisionortheUnited states'CourtofA' ppealsfortheFourthCircuitinM asciov.Colvin,780F.3d632(4th Cir.2015). 1n M ascio.theFourth Ciriuitexplained thatGçtheabilitytoperform simpletasksdiffersfrom the . ability to st>y on task''an'd thatEsgoqnly the latter limitation would accountfora claimant's limittion in concentration,persistence,or pace.'' 780 F.3d at638. Thus,merely limiting a claimaéttounskilledwork,withoutany furtherexplanation,iqinsuffcientunderM ascio. Seeid. (ççperhapstheALJcanexplqinwh#Mascio'smoderatelimitationinconcentration,persistence,or pace,gtstep three doesnottranslate into a lim itation in M ascio'sresiduélfunctionalcapacity .... , ' . - ' .. ' ' Btltbe 'causetheALJheregavenoexplanati:n,aremandisinorder.'');seealsoPerryv.Berryhill, ' .- '- . 18-1076, 2019 U.S. App.LEXIS 6969,at *8 (4th Cir.M ar.'8,2019) (GG The missing . explan>tion in thiscqse isparticularly im portantbecause itis undisputed thatPerry'y stroke left him with limitationsin concentration,persistence,and pace. A nd thosç lim itations,asw e have . . heldjare notaccounted foradequately by theportion ofthe ALJ'Sassessm entthatrestrictsPerry to . <upskilledwork.''')(citingM asciosupra). A lthough the Law Judge also restricted M . r. H'uff to çdlow -stress'' w ork w ith ttonly . gcçasionalinteractionwiththepuhlicorco-workers''(Tr.16),theLaw Judgefailedtoexplainhow ,2 . 's '' .: .: . . tLçs: additional lim'itàtions sufficiently accommodate plaintiffs moderate difficulties with (, . cùncentration,persistence,and pace. See.e.g.,Julia B.v.Berrvhill,N o.7:17-cv-00508,2019 . U.S.Dist.LEXIS 46098,At*20(W .D.V>.Jap.2,2019),renortandrecommendation adopted, 2019 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 45614(W .D.Va.M ar.20,2019)(concluding tàatremandwasrequired 6 under1 M-a.. 1. :.: where the Law Jud.ge failed to explain how (<a limitatipn to low-stresswork stlficieùt :lyaccominodates(theplaintiffsqlnoderatediftscultywithconcentration,persjstejwe,or pace'l' ..Indeed,' the Law Judge' jaid nnthing abbutMr.Hufps ability to perform job-related ftm ctions for a full workday- ç%a benchm ark established by the A dm inistration's ow n regulations-'' Thomas#.Berryhilt91,6F.3d307,312(4thCir.2019)(citationsomitted). Based on theje deficienciej in the bssessmeht of plaintiffs residualfunctional capacity,the court . ' - - . ' concludesthatrem and isrequired. See id. For sim ilar reasons,the courtis also unable to.conclude thatthe Law Judge presented a ' , legally sufficient . hypothçticql to the vocational expert. W hile the Law Judge adopted the vocationàlexpm-t'' s opinion thatplaintiffcan perform production-oriented w ork asan assem bler, packer;orinspector,the voçationalexpeftwasnot' askedtoconsiderthesignitlcance.ofmoderate , limitationsin'concenkation,persi.stence,orpacein theperformancç pfsuçhjobs,a1lofwhich w ould.seem ingly m quireattendancetotask. N evertheless,the Law Judgerelied on thetestim ony . ofthevocationalexpertindeterminingthattherearejobsexisting in signitkantnumbersinthe nationaleconom y which M r.Huffcan perfonn. . ln W alkèr.v..Bow en, 889. 17. 2d 4t (4th Cir.1989),the Fourth Circuitcommented as . fpllows: Thepu' yppse ofbringing in akoçationalexpertisto assistthe ALJin detirmining whethçr there is work available in the national . . eqo'nömywhiphthis' particglarclaipantcanpçrlbrm. ln orderfora vicationalekpert's opinion to be relevantor helpful,itmust be haseduppnaconsiderationofai1otherevidençeintherecord,andit mustàeinresjonsetoproperhypotùeticalquestionsw hich fairly set . outa1lofclaim ant'k impairments. 1d.at50(citationsomitted). In his opinion,the Law Judgc did notofferany specific rationalg for om itting m oderate limitationsin concentra 'tion,persistence,orpacefrom theàypotheticalquçstioflpropoundedtothe vocatiônalexpmrt. Thç coul4 is upable to concludethatthehypotheticalquestion posed by the Law Judge,which'wassum ed that plaintiff can perform ççsimple routine repetitive tasks in a lb'w-stressjob,''was sufficientto alertthe vocational expertto the existence of moderate ' lim itations in concentration,w ork persistence,and attendance to task. The courtbelieves that consideration ofsuch lim itationsw ould beim portantin assessing aclaim ant'scapacity to perform . . : . thejobsidentitled by.the vocatilmalexpert. Indeed,in response tb additiorialquestions,the ' . vocationalexperttestified that those very same jobs wovld no longer be available if the hypotheticalindividualwasdistractedfrom workingforatleast25percentoftheworkday. (Tr. , 79-80).. 1.. ,. . ,,. M oreovxy,Jhq. :rptlr .thCimnit,h>sspepifically held,th>jGan AL.Jdpesnpt.ap. countlfora . . . . . 4 claim ant's lim itations in concentration, persistence, apd paçe by restricting the hypothetical qùestion to sim ple,rou 'tinetasksorunskilledwork-''' M ascioi780F.3dat638(quotingW inschel . ' . v.' comm'rofSoc.Sec-,631F.3d1176,1180(11thCir.201129. ThecpurtrecognizesthatMascio L dqesnotstand forthe pr oposition thatm oderate lim itations in concentration,persistence,orpàce '''' ''' . ' . ' ' . alw ays. translateintoq.limitation in aclaimant'sresidualfunctionalcapacity. Rather,asindicated o : ' . . above,the decision underscoresihe Law Judge'sduty to explain how hisresidualfundional capacity Gndingjadequately'accountforaclaimant'swork-related limitations. ln thiscase,the Law Judge7did notprovide w ch explanation. Consequently,$ta rem and isin order.'' 1d. . . 8 For the x asons stated, the court Gnds Rgood cause'' to remsnd this case to the Comm issionerforfhrther devçlopm entand consideraion-z If the Commissioner is lmable to decide the case in plaintx sfavor on the basis ofthe exiso g record,the Commlssionerwill conkuctasupplementaladmlnlskaivehenrlng étwlllch b0th sideswillbeallowedtopresent addlGonaleddenceandargument. AnappropriateorderofremsndwillbeenterM tllisday. TheClerklsdirectedtosendcertlledcopiesoftbismemorandum opinionto allcolmnelof record. DATED:n 1.#.fF dayofM ay,2019. SeniorUnited StatesDistrictJudge 2h lightofthecoM 'sdecision to mmnndthecasetoleCommissioner,thecourtdeclinesto address M r.Huq'sremsinlng cllumsofo= r. 9
]]>
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.
