Vanduzer v. Colvin, No. 2:2014cv17230 - Document 13 (S.D.W. Va. 2015)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION the final decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED and this matter is DISMISSED from the docket of this Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert on 8/7/2015. (cc: counsel of record) (tmh)

Download PDF

Vanduzer v. Colvin Doc. 13 IN TH E U N ITED STATES D ISTRICT COU RT FOR TH E SOU TH ERN D ISTRICT OF W EST VIRGIN IA CH ARLESTON D IVISION STAN LEY RU SSELL VAN D U ZER, JR., Plain tiff, v. Cas e N o . 2 :14 -cv-172 3 0 CAROLYN W . COLVIN , Actin g Co m m is s io n e r o f th e So cial Se cu rity Ad m in is tratio n , D e fe n d an t. MEMORAN D U M OPIN ION This is an action seeking review of the decision of the Com m issioner of the Social Security Adm inistration (hereinafter the “Com m issioner”) denying Plaintiff’s application for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) and supplem ental security incom e (“SSI”) under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 40 1-433, 13811383f. The case is presently before the Court on the parties’ m otions for judgm ent on the pleadings as articulated in their briefs. (ECF Nos. 11, 12). Both parties have consented in writing to a decision by the United States Magistrate J udge. (ECF Nos. 7, 8). The Court has fully considered the evidence and the argum ents of counsel. For the reasons that follow, the Court FIN D S that the decision of the Com m issioner is supported by substantial evidence and should be affirm ed. I. Pro ce d u ral H is to ry Plaintiff, Stanley Russell Vanduzer, J r., (“Claim ant”), filed for DIB and SSI on J une 13, 20 0 7, alleging a disability onset date of J uly 10 , 20 0 6, (Tr. at 369, 372), due to - 1Dockets.Justia.com “lost vision right eye, hearing problem s, back condition, severe headaches.” (Tr. at 410 ). The Social Security Adm inistration (“SSA”) denied the applications initially and upon reconsideration. (Tr. at 142). Claim ant filed a request for a hearing, which was held on February 26, 20 10 and continued on J une 23, 20 10 before the Honorable Charlie Paul Andrus, Adm inistrative Law J udge (“ALJ ”). (Tr. at 52-72). By written decision dated J uly 6, 20 10 , the ALJ determ ined that Claim ant was not entitled to benefits. (Tr. at 14252). Claim ant filed a request for review, and the Appeals Council rem anded the case to the ALJ for further proceedings. (Tr. at 159-61). On Novem ber 10 , 20 11, the ALJ conducted another hearing to address the issues raised by the Appeals Council. (Tr. at 73-91). By written decision dated J anuary 20 , 20 12, the ALJ again found that Claim ant was not disabled. (Tr. at 166-79). Claim ant filed a request for review, and the Appeals Council rem anded the case for a second tim e. (Tr. at 188-90 ). On October 15, 20 13, an adm inistrative hearing was held before the Honorable J ack Penca, ALJ . (Tr. at 92-134). By written decision dated Novem ber 7, 20 13, the ALJ determ ined that Claim ant was not entitled to benefits. (Tr. at 10 -28). The ALJ ’s decision becam e the final decision of the Com m issioner on March 27, 20 14, when the Appeals Council denied Claimant’s request for review. (Tr. at 1-3). On May 30 , 20 14, Claim ant tim ely filed the present civil action seeking judicial review of the adm inistrative decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 40 5(g). (ECF No. 2). The Com m issioner filed an Answer and a Transcript of the proceedings on August 8, 20 14. (ECF Nos. 9, 10 ). Thereafter, the parties filed their briefs in support of judgm ent on the pleadings. (ECF Nos. 11, 12). Accordingly, this m atter is fully briefed and ready for resolution. II. Claim an t’s Backgro u n d Claim ant was 46 years old at the tim e of his alleged onset of disability and 53 -2- years old on the date of the Com m issioner’s final decision. (Tr. at 96). He left school in the ninth grade and never obtained a General Equivalency Diplom a (“GED”). (Id.). Claim ant com m unicates in English and has prior relevant work experience as a truck driver. (Tr. at 40 9, 471). III. Su m m ary o f ALJ’s Fin d in gs Under 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5), a claim ant seeking disability benefits has the burden of proving a disability. See Blalock v. Richardson, 483 F.2d 773, 775 (4th Cir. 1972). A disability is defined as the “inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any m edically determ inable physical or m ental im pairm ent 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 12 m onths.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). The Social Security Regulations establish a five step sequential evaluation process for the adjudication of disability claim s. If an individual is found “not disabled” at any step of the process, further inquiry is unnecessary and benefits are denied. 20 C.F.R. §§ 40 4.1520 (a)(4), 416.920 (a)(4). First, the ALJ determ ines whether a claim ant is currently engaged in substantial gainful em ploym ent. Id. §§ 40 4.1520 (b), 416.920 (b). Second, if the claim ant is not gainfully em ployed, then the inquiry is whether the claim ant suffers from a severe im pairm ent. Id. §§ 40 4.1520 (c), 416.920 (c). Third, if the claim ant suffers from a severe im pairm ent, the ALJ determ ines whether this im pairm ent m eets or equals any of the im pairm ents listed in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of the Adm inistrative Regulations No. 4 (the “Listing”). Id. §§ 40 4.1520 (d), 416.920 (d). If the im pairm ent does m eet or equal a listed im pairm ent, then the claim ant is found disabled and awarded benefits. However, if the im pairm ent does not m eet or equal a listed impairm ent, the -3- adjudicator m ust determ ine the claim ant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”), which is the m easure of the claim ant’s ability to engage in substantial gainful activity despite the lim itations of his or her im pairm ents. Id. §§ 40 4.1520 (e), 416.920 (e). In the fourth step, the ALJ ascertains whether the claim ant’s im pairm ents prevent the perform ance of past relevant work. Id. §§ 40 4.1520 (f), 416.920 (f). If the im pairm ents do prevent the perform ance of past relevant work, then the claim ant has established a prim a facie case of disability and the burden shifts to the Com m issioner to prove the final step. McLain v. Schw eiker, 715 F.2d 866, 868-69 (4th Cir. 1983). Under the fifth and final inquiry, the Com m issioner m ust dem onstrate that the claim ant is able to perform other form s of substantial gainful activity, while taking into account the claim ant’s rem aining physical and m ental capacities, age, education, and prior work experiences. 20 C.F.R. §§ 40 4.1520 (g), 416.920 (g); see also Hunter v. Sullivan, 993 F.2d 31, 35 (4th Cir. 1992). The Com m issioner m ust establish two things: (1) that the claim ant, considering his or her age, education, skills, work experience, and physical shortcom ings has the capacity to perform an alternative job, and (2) that this specific job exists in significant num bers in the national econom y. McLam ore v. W einberger, 538 F.2d 572, 574 (4th Cir. 1976). When a claim ant alleges a m ental im pairm ent, the ALJ “m ust follow a special technique” when assessing disability. 20 C.F.R. §§ 40 4.1520 a, 416.920 a. First, the ALJ evaluates the claim ant’s pertinent signs, sym ptom s, and laboratory results to determine whether the claim ant has a m edically determ inable m ental im pairm ent. Id. §§ 40 4.1520 a(b), 416.920 a(b). If such im pairm ent exists, the ALJ docum ents the findings. Second, the ALJ rates and docum ents the degree of functional lim itation resulting from the im pairm ent according to criteria specified in the Regulations. Id. §§ 40 4.1520 a(c), 416.920 a(c). Third, after rating the degree of functional lim itation from the claim ant’s -4- im pairm ent(s), the ALJ determ ines the severity of the lim itation. Id. §§ 40 4.1520 a(d), 416.920 a(d). A rating of “none” or “m ild” in the first three functional areas (activities of daily living, social functioning, and concentration, persistence or pace) and “none” in the fourth (episodes of decom pensation) will result in a finding that the im pairm ent is not severe unless the evidence indicates that there is m ore than m inim al lim itation in the claim ant’s ability to do basic work activities. Id. §§ 40 4.1520 a(d)(1), 416.920 a(d)(1). Fourth, if the claim ant’s im pairm ent is deem ed severe, the ALJ com pares the m edical findings about the severe im pairm ent and the degree of functional lim itation against the criteria of the appropriate listed m ental disorder to determ ine if the severe im pairm ent m eets or is equal to a listed m ental disorder. Id. §§ 40 4.1520 a(d)(2), 416.920 a(d)(2). Finally, if the ALJ finds that the claim ant has a severe m ental im pairm ent that neither m eets nor equals a listed m ental disorder, then the ALJ assesses the claim ant’s residual function. 20 C.F.R. §§ 40 4.1520 a(d)(3), 416.920 a(d)(3). In this case, the ALJ determ ined as a prelim inary m atter that Claim ant m et the insured status requirem ents of the Social Security Act through Septem ber 30 , 20 13. (Tr. at 12, Finding No. 1). The ALJ acknowledged that Claim ant satisfied the first inquiry because he had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since J uly 10 , 20 0 6, the alleged disability onset date. (Tr. at 13, Finding No. 2). Under the second inquiry, the ALJ found that Claim ant suffered from severe im pairm ents of “degenerative disc disease; m ajor depressive disorder; generalized anxiety disorder; and pain disorder.” (Tr. at 13-15, Finding No. 3). However, the ALJ found that Claim ant’s im pairm ents of vision loss, hearing loss, hypertension, carpal tunnel syndrom e, and various contusions were all nonsevere. (Tr. at 14-15). Under the third inquiry, the ALJ concluded that Claim ant’s im pairm ents, either individually or in com bination, failed to m eet or -5- m edically equal any of the listed im pairm ents. (Tr. at 15-18, Finding No. 4). Consequently, the ALJ determ ined that Claim ant had the RFC to: [P]erform light work as defined 20 C.F.R. 40 4.1567(b) and 416.967(b) except that claim ant can frequently reach overhead, frequency [sic] clim b ram ps and stairs, can occasionally clim b ladders, ropes and scaffolds, and can occasionally balance, stoop, kneel, crouch or crawl. He m ust avoid concentrated exposure to cold, vibrations, hazards such as m oving m achinery and unprotected heights, and m ust avoid all exposure to loud noise. The claim ant can perform sim ple repetitive routine tasks with no fast pace or strict production requirem ents, with occasional decisionm aking, in a stable work environm ent with few if any changes, and with occasional interactions with coworkers and the public. (Tr. at 18-26, Finding No. 5). Based upon the RFC assessm ent, the ALJ determ ined at the fourth step that Claim ant was unable to perform his past relevant work. (Tr. at 26, Finding No. 6). Under the fifth and final inquiry, the ALJ reviewed Claim ant’s past work experience, age, and education in com bination with his RFC to determ ine if he would be able to engage in substantial gainful activity. (Tr. at 26-28, Finding Nos. 7-10 ). The ALJ considered that (1) Claim ant was born in 1960 and was defined as a younger individual on the alleged disability onset date, but had changed age category in the interim to closely approaching advanced age; (2) he had lim ited education and could com m unicate in English; and (3) transferability of job skills was not m aterial to the disability determ ination. (Tr. at 26-27, Finding Nos. 7-9). Given these factors, Claim ant’s RFC, and the testim ony of a vocational expert, the ALJ determ ined that Claim ant could perform jobs that existed in significant num bers in the national econom y; including, for exam ple, work as a cleaner, deliverym an, or price m arker. (Tr. at 27-28, Finding No. 10 ). Therefore, the ALJ concluded that Claim ant was not disabled as defined in the Social Security Act at any tim e from J uly 10 , 20 0 6 through Novem ber 7, 20 13, the date of the decision. (Id., Finding No. 11). -6- IV. Claim an t’s Ch alle n ge to th e Co m m is s io n e r’s D e cis io n Claim ant alleges that the Com m issioner’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence for two reasons: (1) the ALJ used im proper criteria in evaluating Claim ant’s credibility; and (2) the ALJ failed to adequately account for all of Claim ant’s lim itations in the RFC finding. (ECF No. 11). Claim ant contends that while the evidence supports a fully favorable decision, at the very least, the ALJ should have awarded Claim ant benefits for the closed period beginning on J uly 10 , 20 0 6 and term inating in April, 20 13, when Claim ant had back surgery. According to Claim ant, during this tim e fram e, he suffered from disabling back pain and related lim itations that did not improve until he received surgical intervention. V. Re le van t Me d ical Re co rd s The Court has reviewed the transcript of proceedings in its entirety including the m edical records in evidence. The Court has confined its sum m ary of Claim ant’s treatm ent and evaluations to those entries m ost relevant to the issues in dispute. A. Tre atm e n t Re co rd s On October 14, 20 0 2, Claim ant went to the Em ergency Departm ent (“ED”) at Seven Rivers Com m unity Hospital com plaining of pain in his right eye. He reported that he been struck in the eye with a wrench eight days earlier. (Tr. at 512-17). Claim ant’s vision was tested and reflected 20 / 70 acuity in the left eye; however, he was unable to perform the test for his right eye, stating that the vision in that eye was “cloudy.” (Tr. at 512). The ED nurse exam ined Claim ant’s eyes and docum ented that his pupils were unequal with the right pupil being larger than the left. (Tr. at 513). The ED physician noted that Claim ant’s eye was red, and he had blurred vision and vision loss. (Tr. at 514). Accordingly, the ED physician contacted an ophthalm ologist, Dr. Montgom ery, -7- who agreed to further evaluate Claim ant. (Tr. at 516-17). No further records pertaining to this injury were included in the Transcript of Proceedings. On Septem ber 6, 20 0 6, Claim ant was exam ined by Dr. Edward Dem m i, M.D. (Tr. at 546-48). Dr. Dem m i docum ented that Claim ant was a new consult who had been involved in a truck accident two m onths earlier. Claim ant explained that a dum p truck pulled out in front of him when he was driving a tractor-trailer, causing a front-end collision. Claim ant reported that he was travelling approxim ately 47 m iles per hour at the tim e of the crash. (Tr. at 546). He was wearing his seatbelt, but his stuck the windshield, knocking him unconscious for a brief period of tim e. Claim ant com plained that he continued to have headaches that were localized to the part of his head that struck the windshield. He also experienced lower back pain just above the tailbone, right knee pain, and a swollen right m iddle MCP joint. (Id.). Claim ant stated that he was not taking any m edications at the tim e. Dr. Dem m i perform ed a physical exam ination. (Tr. at 547). He found Claim ant’s visual acuity to be 20 / 20 0 in the right eye and 20 / 70 in the left eye with 20 / 70 vision bilaterally. Claim ant’s neck had a full range of m otion, but he had tenderness at the L4L5 vertebrae, facet tenderness, and an antalgic gait. A straight leg-raising test was negative. Claim ant’s right hand revealed swelling of the right m iddle MCP joint, although his grip was equal bilaterally and his neurovascular function was norm al. Dr. Dem m i ordered x-rays of the right knee, right hand, and lum bosacral spine and com pared them to earlier ones taken at Seven Rivers Com m unity Hospital. All were negative except for a finding of grade I to II spondylolisthesis 1 at L4-L5. (Tr. at 548). Dr. 1 Spondylolisthesis is a forward displacem ent of a vertebra over a lower segm ent. Dorland's Medical Dictionary for Health Consum ers. © 20 0 7 by Saunders, an im print of Elsevier, Inc. -8- Dem m i diagnosed Claim ant with concussion, visual field deficit, spondylolisthesis at L4L5, contused right knee, and contusion of the right hand with reactive tenosynovitis at the m iddle MCP joint. Claim ant was given high-dose ibuprofen and Flexeril. He was placed on restricted duty, including no driving, squatting, kneeling, crawling, no vibratory equipm ent, and no lifting, pulling or pushing greater than 15 pounds. (Id.). Dr. Dem m i referred Claim ant to an ophthalm ologist to rule out a detached retina and to a physical therapist for treatm ent of his lum bosacral spine and right knee. Claim ant returned to Dr. Dem m i’s office for follow-up on Septem ber 19, 20 0 6 and saw Stuart Barnes, a certified physician’s assistant. (Tr. at 544). Claim ant reported that physical therapy was helping, and he had no new sym ptom s. Claim ant also m entioned that his ophthalm ology appointm ent was scheduled for that afternoon. On exam ination, Claim ant had som e lum bar tenderness, but a straight leg-raising test was norm al, and his gait was also observed to be norm al. Claim ant’s Flexeril prescription was refilled. (Id.). Claim ant presented to St. Luke’s Cataract & Laser Institute on Septem ber 19, 20 0 6. (Tr. at 521-23). He reported having been in an accident two m onths earlier in which his forehead hit the windshield. Since that tim e, Claim ant felt there was som ething in the center of his right eye that he was unable to see through. He also com plained of blurriness in the eye and of experiencing headaches when he read. (Tr. at 521). After exam ining Claim ant’s eyes, the attending ophthalm ologist diagnosed Claim ant with traum atic m acular edem a caused by traum a that had resolved but left atrophic scarring in the right eye. However, both retinas were attached. (Tr. at 522). Claim ant was told not to drive without glasses, but no treatm ent was rendered at that visit. (Tr. at 521). -9- On October 3, 20 0 6, Claim ant saw Dr. Dem m i in follow-up. (Tr. at 542). He described his prim ary com plaints as pain in the right knee and low back, and vision loss. An exam ination revealed tenderness in the lum bar area, but Claim ant’s right knee had a full range of m otion. Claim ant was restricted from driving, squatting, clim bing, bending, and no lifting, pulling or pushing greater than 15 pounds. (Id.). These restrictions rem ained in place after Claim ant’s next visit with Stuart Barnes on October 24, 20 0 6. (Tr. at 541). On Novem ber 22, 20 0 6, Claim ant saw Dr. Sam er Choski, a physician working with Dr. Dem m i. (Tr. at 539-40 ). Claim ant reported im provem ent in his right knee, but com plained that he still had pain and tenderness in the lum bar spine. He advised that he had been recently bitten by a spider, which caused an infection and forced him to cancel his last two physical therapy sessions. He stated that his back pain generally decreased with physical therapy. On exam ination, Claim ant had a negative straight legraising test and was able to squat fully and rise from that position without difficulty. Claim ant was given Flexeril and advised to continue with the job restrictions im posed by Dr. Dem m i. (Id.). On December 15, 20 0 6, Claim ant underwent a MRI scan of his lum bar spine to investigate low back pain with a possible herniated disc. (Tr. at 524). The im aging showed osteoarthritic changes involving the spine with anterior spondylolisthesis of L4 in relation to L5; and severe bilateral foram inal narrowing at L4-L5, with hypertrophy and annular disc bulging. There was no evidence of spinal canal com prom ise. (Id.). Claim ant saw Stuart Barnes, PA-C, on Decem ber 20 , 20 0 6. (Tr. at 533-34). He reported a decrease in his post-accident headaches, a resolution of his knee pain, and im provem ent in his lum bar pain. Mr. Barnes noted the results of the MRI. After an - 10 - exam ination, Mr. Barnes diagnosed Claim ant with low back pain, right knee contusion, blunt eye traum a, and closed head injury. He indicated that Claim ant’s back pain had a degenerative com ponent, and his sym ptom atology was responding well to a cortisone injection. Claim ant was instructed not to drive for the com pany and to lim it lifting, pulling, and pushing to no m ore than 30 pounds. (Id.). By J anuary 2, 20 0 7, when Claim ant presented to Dr. Dem m i in follow-up, his lum bar and knee com plaints had resolved. (Tr. at 532). However, Claim ant was diagnosed with a perm anent injury to his right eye and was told not to drive for the com pany. Dr. Demm i did not believe any further treatm ent was needed at the tim e. (Id.). On J une 14, 20 0 7, Claim ant returned to Dr. Dem m i’s office and saw Dr. Choski. (Tr. at 530 -31). Claim ant indicated that his back pain was worsening, and he needed a referral to pain m anagem ent. Dr. Choski noted that the office records showed a resolution of Claim ant’s back pain in J anuary 20 0 7, with no treatm ent since that tim e. Nonetheless, Claim ant insisted that his back pain had never com pletely disappeared. Dr. Choski decided to contact a colleague to discuss Claim ant’s case, and advised Claim ant to wait in the exam ining room while the doctor made the call. However, when Dr. Choski returned to the room , he discovered that Claim ant had left unexpectedly. (Id.). On August 28, 20 0 7, Claim ant was seen at St. Luke’s Cataract & Laser Institute. (Tr. at 518-20 ). On the intake form , Claim ant stated that his vision had changed since his last appointm ent and was affecting his job. (Tr. at 519). Claim ant also advised that he had hearing loss and a herniated disk. When asked about his ability to function, Claim ant m entioned problem s with traveling; seeing faces and the television from a distance; seeing the dials on the stove; and seeing colors and written m aterials even when close. (Tr. at 519). Claim ant described having light sensitivity, but also stated that - 11 - his vision was worse when the lights were dim . On visual exam ination, Claim ant was found to have impaired vision in both eyes, with visual field constriction. (Tr. at 518). Claim ant was instructed not to drive in view of his visual field lim itations. He was scheduled for a Goldm ann Visual Fields Study of both eyes, and was told to return in three weeks for a follow-up evaluation. (Id.). On December 15, 20 0 7, Claim ant was referred for evaluation and treatm ent to Dr. Robert Ulseth at Com prehensive Pain Managem ent by Workers’ Com pensation. (Tr. at 572-77). Originally, Dr. Ulseth was scheduled to exam ine Claim ant on Decem ber 4, 20 0 7, but postponed the evaluation two weeks when Claim ant appeared with “about a ream of paper” for the doctor to review. (Tr. at 578). On Decem ber 15, Claim ant provided the history regarding his truck accident. (Tr. at 572). In addition, Dr. Ulseth had reviewed Claim ant’s prior records and his film s. Claim ant advised Dr. Ulseth that he continued to have pain in the lum bar spine that radiated into his buttocks on the right side down to the lateral aspect of the leg, crossing over the thigh and occasionally going down to the m edial aspect of the right calf. Claim ant stated that the pain was always present and was exacerbated by sitting, walking, standing, lifting, and bending. (Tr. at 573). The pain woke him up at night. Claim ant denied having any weakness in the lim bs, or problem s with his bowel and bladder function. (Tr. at 574). Claim ant also reported problem s with his hearing and vision. Claim ant told Dr. Ulseth that his goal was to find relief for his pain, so that he could return to work and live a norm al life. (Tr. at 575). On exam ination, Dr. Ulseth confirm ed that Claim ant was “hard of hearing.” (Id.). However, Claim ant had excellent range of m otion in the lower back and could bend down to touch the floor. He had som e problem s with flexion, twisting, and side-to-side - 12 - m ovem ent. Claim ant had a positive right leg-raising test and som e decreased strength in the right leg when com pared to the left, although both leg m uscles technically m easured 5/ 5 bilaterally. (Tr. at 576). Claim ant also had decreased sensation in the right calf with pinprick. However, he was able to am bulate freely without difficulty. Dr. Ulseth diagnosed Claim ant with low back pain and suggestive radicular sym ptom s down the right leg. Dr. Ulseth prescribed Lorcet and a Medrol dosepak and told Claim ant to rem ain off work. Dr. Ulseth discussed weight loss with Claim ant and recom mended that he continue with exercises at hom e but to be careful. (Tr. at 576-77). Dr. Ulseth suggested that Claim ant m ight be a candidate for epidural injections in the future. Dr. Ulseth saw Claim ant again on J anuary 15 and February 12, 20 0 8. (Tr. at 57981). At the J anuary visit, Claimant reported that he had good days where he did not need any m edication and bad days when he took m ore than directed. Nonetheless, Dr. Ulseth noted that Claim ant had not used m ore m edication than was prescribed for the period as a whole. (Tr. at 580 ). Claim ant had good pain relief from Hydrocodone, but that m edication reduced his energy level. Claim ant had not returned to physical therapy due to pain. Dr. Ulseth encouraged Claim ant to return in order to get som e m uscle strengthening and flexibility. He prescribed Cym balta to help Claim ant with obvious signs of depression. (Tr. at 581). At the February visit, Claim ant com plained of still having sym ptom s, so Dr. Ulseth refilled the prescription for Lortab and added Prozac instead of Cym balta, which was m ore expensive. (Tr. at 579). He lectured Claim ant on taking the “bull by the horns,” losing weight and getting m ore active, so that he could reduce his dependence on pain m edication. (Id.). On August 5, 20 0 9, Claim ant saw Dr. J am es Magnussen for com plaints related to loss of hearing. (Tr. at 654). Claim ant reported decreased hearing in both ears that had - 13 - persisted for at least three years. He had no other sym ptom s and took no m edications. On exam ination, Claim ant was noted to be a thin m ale in no acute distress. After testing, Claim ant was diagnosed with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss of a flat nature. Dr. Magnussen suggested hearing aids and recom m ended that Claim ant contact the West Virginia Bureau of Vocational Rehabilitation to see if it could help with the expense. (Id.). On February 12, 20 10 , Claim ant was exam ined by Lonnie Lucas at ProEyes Optom etry Associates. (Tr. at 650 -51). He was found to have uncorrected visual acuity of 20 / 40 0 in both eyes, when m easured separately and together. His visual fields were found to be full in all quadrants by com puterized screening. Claim ant was diagnosed with a m acular scar in the right eye, m yopia, astigm atism , and presbyopia. He was told to m onitor his vision in the right eye and to report any changes, although his prospect for visual recovery in that eye was not good. A m odification of his eyeglass prescription was also recom m ended. (Id.). On April 23, 20 12, Claim ant presented to Roane General Health Clinic to followup and to establish prim ary care with Dr. Grant Parkins after an Em ergency Departm ent (“ED”) visit triggered by a fall in the shower. (Tr. at 724-26). His wife told Dr. Parkins that Claim ant had actually fallen in the yard first and then later in the shower. (Tr. at 725). He com plained of back pain radiating into both legs, with stiffness. Claim ant’s exam ination revealed paraspinal lum bar tenderness and spasm , but a straight legraising test was negative bilaterally. (Tr. at 726). Dr. Parkins diagnosed Claim ant with a back contusion and prescribed Flexeril, Tram adol, and one 325 mg aspirin to take once per day. He was also given sam ples of Lyrica, Celebrex, and Lidoderm and told to return in one m onth. - 14 - Claim ant returned on May 14, 20 12 with com plaints of forgetfulness. (Tr. at 72729). He reported that Lyrica and Celebrex im proved his back pain, but his m em ory was not as good. (Tr. at 728). Claim ant’s exam ination was grossly norm al. Dr. Parkins diagnosed Claim ant with degenerative disc disease (“DDD”) of the lum bar spine and depression. (Tr. at 729). He prescribed Cym balta, Lyrica, and Celebrex. Claim ant was instructed to return in one m onth. When Claim ant returned on J une 25, 20 12, he reported “doing m uch better” and stated that he was now working at Walm art. (Tr. at 730 -32). Claim ant saw Dr. Parkins again on Septem ber 27, 20 12 for right knee pain; on October 25, 20 12 for follow-up after an ED visit and knee pain; and on Decem ber 18, 20 12 for follow-up. (Tr. at 733-42). He reported having m ore falls during this period and had consulted with Dr. Crow, a neurosurgeon, for surgical intervention. He stated that Dr. Crow scheduled the procedure, but it was delayed. (Tr. at 741). Dr. Parkins refilled Claim ant’s m edications and told him to return as needed. Claim ant returned to Dr. Parkins’s office two m ore tim es before his back surgery for m edication refills. (Tr. at 874-80 ). On October 10 , 20 12, Claim ant underwent an MRI scan of the lum bar spine. (Tr. at 722-23). The im aging showed advanced multilevel degenerative lum bar facet and disc disease. Canal stenosis was appreciated at the L2-L3 and m oderate central canal and left neural foram inal stenosis at L3-L4. (Tr. at 723). Severe neural foram inal narrowing was present on the left with m oderate neural foram inal narrowing on the right. At the L4-L5, there was severe bilateral foram inal stenosis and grade 2 anterolisthesis, with an asym m etrical disc bulge at L5-S1, causing im pingem ent of the foram inal and extraforaminal portions of the left L5 nerve root. (Id.). - 15 - Claim ant was seen by Dr. Crow on Novem ber 5, 20 12. (Tr. at 770 -74). Claim ant reported chronic back pain exacerbated by a fall in the shower six m onths earlier. He stated that conservative therapy worked at the tim e to lessen his sym ptom s. However, approxim ately one m onth ago, Claim ant suffered another fall when he stepped off the back of a pick-up truck. At that tim e, he felt pain and weakness in the lower extrem ities. (Tr. at 771). He also developed num bness radiating down both legs and som e difficulties with urination. Dr. Crow conducted a neurological exam ination, which revealed an awkward gait. (Tr. at 773). Claim ant used a walker to am bulate and could not walk on his heels or his toes. There was no m idline percussible pain, however, and straight legraising tests were negative. Claim ant had decreased strength and sensation in the lower extrem ities. Dr. Crow diagnosed an exacerbation of Claim ant’s pre-existing back problem s and recom m ended a m ultilevel decom pression and pedicle fixation. (Tr. at 774). Claim ant wanted to avoid surgery, so physical therapy was arranged. Claim ant returned to Dr. Crow’s office on February 1 and 8, 20 13. (Tr. at 775-81). Both tim es, he was seen by Dr. Lana Christiano. Claim ant continued to com plain of chronic back pain and weakness. His strength testing confirm ed som e decreased strength of both lower extrem ities, but m uscle tone and m ovem ent was norm al. (Tr. at 779). After com pleting her exam inations and reviewing film s, Dr. Christiano recom m ended that Claim ant undergo a fusion at the L4-L5 with interbody graft, a L2-L3 lum bar lam inectom y to allow central decom pression, and a pedicle fusion from L2 to L5. (Tr. at 780 ). Claim ant agreed and underwent surgery on April 4, 20 13. (Tr. at 82830 ). The procedures included a L4-L5 lumbar interbody fusion, L4-L5 pedicle screws, L4-L5 lam inectom y with facetectom y, and a L2 lam inectom y. Postoperatively, Claim ant did well, reporting com plete relief of the back and leg pain. (Tr. at 824). - 16 - In October 20 13, Dr. Christiano recom m ended, and Claim ant underwent, nerve conduction studies for num bness and tingling in his upper extrem ities. (Tr. at 883-84). The studies reflected evidence of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrom e of m oderate degree. (Id.). B. Age n cy Evalu atio n s an d RFC Op in io n s On May 18, 20 0 7, Dr. Am y Clunn perform ed an independent m edical exam ination of Claim ant. (Tr. at 526-29). She docum ented Claim ant’s history of low back injury occurring on J uly 10 , 20 0 6 when his tractor-trailer was involved in a frontend im pact. Claim ant indicated that his head hit the windshield, his right knee hit the inside of the vehicle, and his chair snapped back, causing his to experience pain in the back. (Tr. at 526). Claim ant reported having chronic headaches, low back pain radiating down his right lower extrem ity to the knee, and a detached retina of the right eye. Claim ant stated that his knee pain had im proved with physical therapy, but he still experienced considerable low back pain. He rated the severity of the pain as 8.5 on a 10 point scale, describing it as sharp, stabbing, and continuous. Claim ant indicated that standing, walking, driving, lifting, bending, and twisting exacerbated the pain, while lying down and applying heat reduced it. (Id.). He had num bness, weakness, and nocturnal pain, but no problem s with bladder or bowel function. Claim ant reported that he had tried physical therapy, but it did not help his back. He had not received injections, nor seen a surgeon. (Tr. at 527). Dr. Clunn perform ed a neurom usculoskeletal exam ination, noting that Claim ant walked without assistive devices. (Tr. at 528). His cervical and thoracic spinal range of m otion was norm al; however, he showed reduced lum bar lordosis and segm ental m obility. He had paravertebral spasm s. Claim ant’s hip and knee range of motion were - 17 - norm al, and his extrem ity strength was equal bilaterally at 5/ 5. (Id.).Claim ant was able to toe and heel walk, indicating functional distal strength. Claim ant had a negative seated straight leg-raising test and norm al neurological findings. Dr. Clunn diagnosed Claim ant with a lum bosacral sprain, and with spondylolisthesis, severe facet hypertrophy, foram inal narrowing, and herniated disk at L4-5 on MRI. She opined that Claim ant had not reached m axim um m edical im provem ent and should be offered a trial of epidural steroid injections, physical therapy, and m edication, as necessary. At this tim e, she recom m ended no lifting greater than twenty pounds and no repetitive bending. She believed Claim ant would ultim ately have perm anent restrictions and m ight need a fusion surgery if the conservative therapy did not work. (Tr. at 529). On October 18, 20 0 7, after several visits with Claim ant, Dr. Michael Webb com pleted a Workers’ Com pensation Uniform Medical Treatment/ Status Reporting Form . (Tr. at 612). Dr. Webb indicated that Claim ant needed pain m anagem ent services and physical / occupational therapy. He opined that on J anuary 2, 20 0 7, Claim ant had reached his m axim um m edical im provem ent from the work-related accident. (Tr. at 613). Dr. Webb felt Claim ant should be restricted from lifting m ore than 20 pounds and should not be perm itted to do any com m ercial driving. (Id.). Also on October 18, 20 0 7, Claim ant was sent by Disability Determ ination Services (“DDS”) to L. Earl Wingo, M.D. for an eye exam ination. (Tr. at 552-58). Without correction, Claim ant had visual acuity of 20 / 80 0 in his right eye and 20 / 150 in his left eye. (Tr. at 558). With best correction, Claim ant still had visual acuity of 20 / 80 0 in the right eye and 20 / 25 in the left eye. Dr. Wingo noted that Claim ant had no central vision in his right eye, but did have peripheral vision. (Id.). Dr. Eric Puestow com pleted a Physical Residual Functional Capacity Assessm ent - 18 - form on October 24, 20 0 7. (Tr. at 559-66). He opined that Claim ant could frequently lift and carry 25 pounds; occasionally lift and carry 50 pounds; stand and/ or walk 6 hours in an 8-hour work day; sit about 6 hours in an 8-hour work day; and had an unlim ited ability to push and pull. (Tr. at 560 ). Dr. Puestow did not believe Claim ant had any postural, m anipulative, or com m unicative lim itations, but assessed Claim ant as lim ited in depth perception. (Tr. at 561-62). He recom m ended that Claim ant avoid concentrated exposure to noise and hazards, such as m achinery and heights. (Tr. at 563). Dr. Puestow com m ented that Claim ant had credible allegations of loss of hearing and right eye vision; therefore, hearing conservation and hazard restrictions were in order. (Tr. at 564). On March 10 , 20 0 8, Stephen Burge, M.D., com pleted a Physical Residual Functional Capacity Assessm ent form . (Tr. at 583-90 ). He opined that Claim ant could frequently lift and carry 25 pounds; occasionally lift and carry 50 pounds; stand and/ or walk 6 hours in an 8-hour work day; sit about 6 hours in an 8-hour work day; and had an unlim ited ability to push and pull. (Tr. at 584). Dr. Burge did not believe Claim ant had any postural, m anipulative, or com m unicative limitations, but assessed Claim ant as lim ited in depth perception and field of vision. (Tr. at 585-86). He com m ented that Claim ant additionally had decreased vision and hearing, but his ability to hear could be corrected with hearing aids. (Tr. at 584). Dr. Burge was not particularly im pressed with Claim ant’s spinal problem s. (Id.). He recom m ended that Claim ant avoid concentrated exposure to noise. (Tr. at 587). On March 26, 20 0 8, Claim ant was referred by DDS to Collen Character, Ph.D., for a psychological evaluation. (Tr. at 591-94). Dr. Character interviewed Claim ant to obtain his history. Claim ant stated that he had a good childhood, having been raised - 19 - with four sisters on a dairy farm in New York. He denied any fam ily history of psychiatric problem s, and he had no serious problem s with alcohol, drugs, or the law. (Tr. at 591). Claim ant indicated that he left school in the ninth grade so that he could start working. He was never in the m ilitary. Claim ant adm itted to two m arriages. The first m arriage lasted approxim ately twenty years and resulted in five children. He had been in his second m arriage for two years. (Tr. at 592). Claim ant stated that he last worked in J uly 20 0 6, when he was involved in an accident and was term inated from his position as a sem i-truck driver. Claim ant denied any inpatient or outpatient psychiatric care, but reported a two and one half year history of taking psychotropic m edications for depression and pain. He claim ed to still have depression related to his lack of em ploym ent and precarious financial situation. When asked about his current living situation and activities, Claim ant indicated that he lived in a house with his wife. He liked to go horseback riding, fishing, hunting, bowling, and liked to ride m otorcycles. (Tr. at 592). He could com plete his activities of daily living independently and helped his wife do the shopping However, Claim ant’s wife did the cooking, laundry, housework, and yard work. (Tr. at 593). Dr. Character docum ented her observations of Claim ant, noting that he was prom pt for his appointm ent, and was dressed and groom ed properly. He reportedly wore glasses and hearing aids, and he did not evidence problems with speech. His eye contact and affect were appropriate. Claim ant was oriented in all spheres; he had average abstract thinking, normal thought content, average judgm ent, but a lack of com m on sense. Dr. Character diagnosed Claim ant with m ajor depression, m ild; anxiety disorder, not otherwise specified (“NOS”); and pain disorder associated with both psychological factors and a general m edical condition. (Tr. at 594). - 20 - On April 29 and 30 , 20 0 8, Edm und Bartlett, Ph.D., com pleted a Mental Residual Functional Capacity Assessm ent and Psychiatric Review Technique. (Tr. at 621-38). Dr. Bartlett opined that Claim ant had an affective disorder (m ajor depressive disorder), anxiety-related disorder (pain disorder), som atoform disorder (m ultiple som atic com plaints), and substance addiction disorder (polysubstance abuse for alcohol and m arijuana, currently in rem ission). (Tr. at 625, 628, 630 -31, 633). He felt Claim ant had m ild lim itations in activities of daily living and m oderate lim itations in m aintaining social functioning and persistence, concentration, or pace. He had no episodes of decom pensation. (Tr. at 635). Claim ant showed no evidence of paragraph C criteria. (Tr. at 636). Overall, Dr. Bartlett believed Claim ant’s m ental health im pairm ent was m oderate. (Tr. at 637). With respect to specific work-related functions, Dr. Bartlett opined that Claim ant was m oderately lim ited in his ability to m aintain attention and concentration for extended periods of tim e, regularly attend work, be punctual, com plete tasks on schedule, and not have psychologically-based interruptions and extended rest periods during a regular work day. (Tr. at 621-22). In sum m ary, Dr. Bartlett opined that Claim ant was “still capable of doing sim ple and basic tasks and low stress settings of hom e or work.” (Tr. at 623). On March 23, 20 10 , Claim ant was exam ined by Penny Perdue, M.A., at Associates in Psychology and Therapy, Inc., for DDS. (Tr. at 656-59). Claim ant reported that he was in chronic pain, and his pain influenced his m ood. He described feeling depression, sadness, loss of energy, social withdrawal, irritability, nervousness, and worry. Claim ant stated that his pain affected his sleep, and he also had situational panic attacks. (Tr. at 656). He denied receiving counseling or having inpatient psychiatric care. Claimant reported com pleting the eighth grade, and he never attem pted to obtain a - 21 - General Equivalency Diplom a (‘GED”). However, Claim ant denied being in special education classes or having discipline problem s. (Tr. at 657). Ms. Perdue reviewed Claim ant’s records and conducted a m ental status exam ination. She found Claim ant to have fair groom ing and hygiene, noting that he wore dark glasses and had long hair. His interaction was appropriate. He was cooperative and had relevant and coherent speech; a norm al affect; normal orientation; norm al thought content and processes, judgm ent and insight; and no delusions or hallucinations. Claim ant’s im m ediate and rem ote m em ory was norm al, but his recent m em ory appeared m oderately deficient. Claim ant’s concentration was m ildly deficient, and he exhibited pain behaviors during the exam ination. (Tr. at 657-58). Ms. Perdue adm inistered a series of tests. Claim ant was unable to com plete the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Test due to eyesight problem s, but scored at the 11.7 grade level in reading, 6.8 level in spelling, and 5.2 level in m ath on the Wide Range Achievem ent Test. Ms. Perdue diagnosed Claim ant with depressive disorder, NOS, and anxiety disorder, NOS. (Tr. at 658). She felt his prognosis was poor in light of his chronic pain. (Tr. at 659). Ms. Perdue docum ented Claim ant’s daily activities as watching television, lying in bed, cooking once per week, vacuum ing, m aintaining his groom ing and hygiene, driving occasionally, woodworking, reading, and hunting. Claim ant stated that m any of his activities, such as reading, shopping, and shaving, were significantly lim ited due to his poor eyesight. Ms. Perdue felt Claim ant had norm al social functioning, although he com plained that his social interaction was nonexistent due to his hearing loss. She found his persistence and pace to be norm al. (Tr. at 659). Ms. Perdue com pleted a Medical Source Statem ent of Ability to do Work-Related Activities (Mental). (Tr. at 660 ). She opined that Claim ant was m ildly lim ited in his - 22 - ability to m ake judgm ents on sim ple work-related decisions; was m oderately lim ited in his ability to understand and rem em ber com plex instructions; and was m oderately to m arkedly lim ited in carrying out com plex instructions and m aking com plex workrelated decisions. Ms. Perdue explained that m ost of Claim ant’s lim itations were related to physical problem s and pain, and his abilities would fluctuate depending upon his level of discom fort. (Id.). In functions related to social interaction, Ms. Perdue opined that Claim ant was m ildly to m oderately im paired, again largely dependent upon his pain level. (Tr. at 661). On May 12, 20 10 , Dr. Kip Beard perform ed a physical evaluation of Claim ant for DDS. (Tr. at 664-69). He docum ented Claim ant’s chief com plaints to be loss of vision in the right eye, loss of hearing, back condition, and severe headaches. Claim ant described his sym ptom s, reporting that his headaches occurred every day, at least twice per day, and lasted two hours to all day. The pain was a seven on a ten-point scale and was a stabbing pain that started behind his right eye, radiating to the right forehead and back of the head. (Tr. at 665). His back pain was constant, affecting his right side m ore than his left. He indicated that he pain lim ited his ability to walk, clim b steps, and lift. Claim ant took Crestor, Cym balta, Nexium , and ibuprofen for his sym ptom s. (Tr. at 665). Dr. Beard reviewed Claim ant’s old records and then perform ed an exam ination. (Tr. at 666-67). He noted that Claim ant walked with a right-sided lim p, but had a gait that was “not unsteady.” With corrective lenses, Claim ant’s visual acuity was 20 / 20 0 in the right eye and 20 / 40 in the left when corrected. Claim ant’s extrem ities, cervical spine, hands, knees, ankles, and feet were all norm al with good range of m otion. (Tr. at 667). Claim ant com plained of pain in the lum bosacral spine, but curvature and range of m otion were norm al. Claim ant could stand on one leg, had no leg length discrepancy, a - 23 - negative seated straight leg-raising test, and no spasm s. Claim ant’s neurological testing was norm al, including calf, thigh bicep and forearm m easurem ents. (Tr. at 668). Dr. Beard diagnosed Claim ant with a right eye m acular scar with decreased vision, bilateral sensorineural hearing loss, chronic lum bosacral strain with right sym ptom s and report of bulging disk, and headaches. (Id.). Dr. Beard com pleted a Medical Source Statem ent of Ability to do Work-Related Activities (Physical). (Tr. at 670 -76). He opined that Claim ant could continuously lift and carry 10 pounds, frequently lift and carry up to 20 pounds; occasionally lift and carry up to 10 0 pounds; stand and walk 2 hours each in an 8-hour work day; and sit about 4 hours in an 8-hour work day, although he could only stand and walk one hour at a tim e, and sit up to 2 hours without interruption. (Tr. at 671). Dr. Beard added that Claim ant had som e lim itations in reaching, pushing, pulling, and handling floor controls. He also felt that Claim ant was lim ited to only occasional balancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, crawling, and clim bing of ladders and scaffolds. (Tr. at 673). Finally, he opined that Claim ant should never be around unprotected heights. (Tr. at 674). Claim ant received a second physical evaluation for DDS on J uly 6, 20 11, which was perform ed by Stephen Nutter, M.D. (Tr. at 688-91). Claim ant continued to com plain of back pain and headaches related to his 20 0 6 accident. His description of the pain and resulting lim itations was consistent with his report to Dr. Beard. On exam ination, Claim ant was observed to walk with a lim ping gait. His neck, hands, and cervical spine exam inations were norm al. (Tr. at 690 ). Claim ant’s shoulders were painful with m ovem ent and tender, and his right knee experienced m ild pain with m ovem ent, as well as tenderness. Claim ant had pain with range of m otion testing of his - 24 - dorsolum bar spine, but no spasm s. His straight leg-raising test was norm al in both sitting and supine positions. (Tr. at 691). Neurological testing was norm al, as were m easurem ents of Claim ant’s upper arm s, forearm s, upper legs, and calves. Claim ant could walk on his heels and toes, could tandem walk, and could squat without difficulty. Muscle strength was equal bilaterally at 5/ 5. (Id.). Dr. Nutter diagnosed Claim ant with chronic lum bar strain and arthralgia. Dr. Nutter also com pleted a Medical Source Statem ent of Ability to do WorkRelated Activities (Physical). (Tr. at 692-98). He opined that Claim ant could continuously lift and carry 10 pounds, frequently lift and carry up to 20 pounds; occasionally lift and carry up to 50 pounds; stand 4 hours, walk 3 hours, and sit 5 hours in an 8-hour work day, although he could only stand 3 hours, walk 2 hours, and sit 4 hours without interruption. (Tr. at 693). Dr. Nutter found that Claim ant had som e lim itation in reaching overhead and felt that he was lim ited to only occasional balancing, stooping, crawling, and clim bing of ladders and scaffolds. (Tr. at 695). Claim ant could frequently clim b stairs and ram ps, kneel, and crawl. Finally, he opined that Claim ant could only occasionally be around unprotected heights and tolerate vibrations. (Tr. at 696). On J uly 11, 20 11, Claim ant saw Dr. J ohn Wade at the request of the DDS. (Tr. at 699). Dr. Wade, an otolaryngologist, was asked to assess Claim ant’s hearing loss. After taking a history and perform ing an exam ination, Dr. Wade diagnosed Claim ant with nasal obstruction, cephalgia, hearing loss, and tinnitus. He felt that Claim ant’s hearing loss was bilateral and m oderately severe with a possible nonorganic overlay. He noted that Claim ant was hesitant to respond and provided inconsistent responses when tested. Another eye exam ination was perform ed on Claim ant on J uly 28, 20 11. (Tr. at - 25 - 70 1-0 3). J ohn Wiles, OD, diagnosed Claim ant with a m acular injury to the right eye with central and som e tem poral loss of vision. He m easured Claim ant’s visual acuity as 20 / 10 0 in the right eye with best correction, near, and 20 / 20 in the left eye. (Tr. at 70 1). Visual acuity, distant, was 20 / 20 0 in the right eye and 20 / 20 in the left eye, with best correction. On August 27, 20 11, Claim ant was assessed by Dr. Paul Craig, an occupational m edicine specialist, at the request of Claim ant’s attorney. (Tr. at 712-13). Dr. Craig sum m arized his exam ination by noting that Claim ant had no frank radicular deficits, but did reflect findings suggestive of spondylolisthesis at the L4-L5. Claim ant had no upper extrem ity radicular sym ptom s to explain his headaches, and the headaches sounded alm ost m igrainous by description. Claim ant did have sym ptom s of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrom e. He also likely suffered a retinal tear at the tim e of his truck accident, which caused gradual decrease of vision to the point that Claim ant was essentially m onocular. Dr. Craig indicated that Claim ant m ight have hearing loss, but found the records to be inconsistent. Dr. Craig opined that Claim ant’s im pairm ents, in com bination, rendered him unable to sustain regular 8-hour per day, 5 days per week em ploym ent at the present tim e. (Tr. at 713). Nevertheless, Dr. Craig felt that with intervention, m otivation, and vocational rehabilitation assistance m ight be able to return to full tim e em ploym ent. The necessary intervention would include corrective lenses, hearing aids, and treatment of the m usculoskeletal issues. However, without treatm ent and assistance, Claim ant would rem ain disabled. Dr. Craig com pleted a Medical Assessm ent of Ability to do Work-Related Activities (Physical). (Tr. at 714-16). He opined that Claim ant could lift and carry up to 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds or less frequently. (Tr. at 714). Claim ant could - 26 - stand no m ore than 6 hours per day and only 2-4 hours without interruption. (Tr. at 715). He could sit a m axim um of 6 hours, but would need to change position every 2-4 hours. He could only rarely balance, stoop, crouch, and kneel, and should never clim b or crawl. Dr. Craig indicated that Claim ant was lim ited in reaching, handling, pushing, and pulling, and he had num erous environm ental lim itations involving his exposure to heights, m achinery, tem perature extrem es, chem icals, fum es, hum idity, and vibrations. (Tr. at 716). On February 28, 20 13, Claim ant m et with Kara Gettm an-Hughes, M.A., for a psychological exam ination ordered by DDS. (Tr. at 782-87). Claim ant arrived at the appointm ent in the com pany of his wife. He provided history consistent with prior accounts. He added that he had tried to return to work at Walm art, but had to quit due to his back. After that, it took him three weeks to regain his ability to walk. (Tr. at 783). He described his psychological sym ptom s as including sadness, guilt, depression, sleep im pairm ent, helplessness, fatigue, excessive worry, frustration, m uscle tension, difficulty concentrating, and m em ory im pairm ent. For the first tim e, Claim ant reported getting psychological treatm ent during childhood, but could provide no details. (Tr. at 784). He indicated that his current m edications included Cym balta, Hydrocodone, and Lyrica. After reviewing Claim ant’s history and prior records, Ms. Gettm an-Hughes perform ed a m ental status exam ination. (Tr. at 785). She observed that Claim ant was dressed properly for the evaluation and was cooperative. He was oriented in all spheres except he did not know the exact date. His m ood was sad; his affect restricted; his judgm ent was intact; his speech was norm al; and his insight was fair. Claim ant’s im m ediate and recent m em ory was im paired, and his rem ote m em ory was fair. - 27 - Concentration and pace were norm al, but his persistence and social interactions were m ildly im paired. Ms. Gettm an-Hughes diagnosed Claim ant with m ajor depressive disorder, recurrent, m oderate, without psychotic features; generalized anxiety disorder; and pain disorder associated with psychological factors and general m edical condition. (Id.). She docum ented Claim ant’s self-reported social functioning as going to the store and doctors’ appointm ent. (Tr. at 786). Claim ant had three friends and ate out once per m onth, but did not talk on the telephone, visit his friends, go to m ovies, or go to the m all. His daily activities included norm al groom ing with som e help showering, taking his grandson to school, washing the dishes, caring for the fam ily’s pigs, helping his grandson with hom ework, watching videos, and reading books. Claim ant ate twice per day and bathed three tim es per week. Ms. Gettm an-Hughes felt Claim ant’s prognosis was poor. Ms. Gettm an-Hughes com pleted a Medical Source Statem ent of Ability to do Work-Related Activities (Mental). (Tr. at 788-91). She opined that Claim ant was m ildly lim ited in his ability to understand, rem em ber, and carry out sim ple instructions and m ake judgm ents on sim ple work-related decisions; was m oderately lim ited in his ability to understand, rem em ber, and carry out com plex instructions, m ake com plex workrelated decisions. (Tr. at 788). In functions related to social interaction, Ms. Perdue opined that Claim ant was m oderately im paired in m ost functions, except he was m arkedly im paired in the ability to respond appropriately to the usual work situations and to changes in the work setting. (Tr. at 789). On March 11, 20 13, Claim ant was exam ined by Dr. Rakesh Wahi for DDS. (Tr. at 796-99). Dr. Wahi rem arked that Claim ant’s hearing im pairm ent m ade it difficult to interview him . Claim ant also com plained of vision loss and back problem s. Claim ant - 28 - denied drinking alcohol, but adm itted to sm oking and drinking 36 cups of coffee per day. On physical exam ination, Claim ant was oriented, fully cooperative, well-nourished and hydrated, and appeared his stated age of 52. (Tr. at 798). Claim ant’s visual acuity was 20 / 10 0 in the left eye, and unm easurable in the right eye. Claim ant had a noticeable lim p, but was able to get on and off the exam ination table. He could walk on his heels and toes, but could not squat. (Tr. at 798-99). His upper and lower extrem ity strength was 5/ 5 bilaterally, without signs of atrophy or hypertrophy. (Tr. at 799). Claim ant expressed considerable pain in the lum bar spine when exam ined. Dr. Wahi diagnosed Claim ant with hearing loss, vision loss, and traum atic arthritis of the lum bar spine. He opined that Claim ant had suffered severe traum a to his lum bar spine that caused pain and lim ited his daily activities. According to Dr. Wahi, Claim ant showed significant range of m otion lim itations, and his com plaints of pain were corroborated by his need for m edications. Dr. Wahi com pleted a Medical Source Statem ent of Ability to do Work-Related Activities (Physical). (Tr. at 80 0 -0 5). He opined that Claim ant could lift and carry up to 20 pounds continuously and 50 pounds or less occasionally. (Tr. at 80 0 ). Claim ant could stand no m ore than 1 hour per day, sit a m axim um of 6 hours, and walk 1 hour. (Tr. at 80 1) Dr. Wahi did not include the need for positional changes. He opined that Claim ant could frequently reach, handle, finger, feel, and push/ pull, but could never reach overhead with his right hand. (Tr. at 80 2). He could frequently operate foot controls with both feet. With respect to postural lim itations, Dr. Wahi felt that Claim ant should never balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl, but could occasionally clim b stairs, ram ps, ladders, and scaffolds. (Tr. at 80 3). He opined that even with the hearing loss, Claim ant retained the ability to hear and understand oral instructions and - 29 - com m unicate using the telephone. Even with his visual loss, Claim ant should be able to view a computer screen, determ ine differences in shape and color of sm all objects like nuts and bolts, and avoid hazards. However, Dr. Wahi did not believe Claim ant could read print. (Id.). Claim ant had no environm ental lim itations and could tolerate loud noises. (Tr. at 80 4). Claim ant hearing loss and vision loss were reconfirm ed with additional consultations. Dr. Michael Goins, an otolaryngologist diagnosed Claim ant with subjective tinnitus and m ixed conductive sensorineural hearing loss on March 6, 20 13, (Tr. at 80 9-11), and J ohn Casto, O.D., diagnosed Claim ant with a loss of central vision in the right eye, with m ildly constricted visual fields. His visual loss in the left eye could be corrected with lenses, and Dr. Casto suggested Claim ant contact the Lions Club for financial assistance. (Tr. at 815). VI. Sco p e o f Re vie w The issue before this Court is whether the final decision of the Com m issioner denying Claim ant’s application for benefits is supported by substantial evidence. The Fourth Circuit has defined substantial evidence as: evidence which a reasoning m ind would accept as sufficient to support a particular conclusion. It consists of m ore than a m ere scintilla of evidence but m ay be som ewhat less than a preponderance. If there is evidence to justify a refusal to direct a verdict were the case before a jury, then there is “substantial evidence.” Blalock, 483 F.2d at 776 (quoting Law s v. Celebrezze, 368 F.2d 640 , 642 (4th Cir. 1966)). Additionally, the adm inistrative law judge, not the court, is charged with resolving conflicts in the evidence. Hay s v. Sullivan, 90 7 F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir. 1990 ). The Court will not re-weigh conflicting evidence, m ake credibility determ inations, or substitute its judgm ent for that of the Com m issioner. Id. Instead, the - 30 - Court’s duty is lim ited in scope; it m ust adhere to its “traditional function” and “scrutinize the record as a whole to determ ine whether the conclusions reached are rational.” Oppenheim v. Finch, 495 F.2d 396, 397 (4th Cir. 1974). Thus, the ultim ate question for the Court is not whether the Claim ant is disabled, but whether the decision of the Com m issioner that the Claim ant is not disabled is well-grounded in the evidence, bearing in m ind that “[w]here conflicting evidence allows reasonable m inds to differ as to whether a claim ant is disabled, the responsibility for that decision falls on the [Com m issioner].” W alker v. Bow en, 834 F.2d 635, 640 (7th Cir. 1987). The Court has considered Claim ant’s challenges and finds them unpersuasive. To the contrary, having analyzed the record as a whole, the Court concludes that the finding of the Com m issioner that Claim ant is not disabled is supported by substantial evidence. VII. An alys is As previously stated, Claim ant raises two challenges to the Com m issioner’s decision. First, Claim ant contends that the ALJ used im proper criteria in assessing his credibility. Second, Claim ant alleges that the RFC finding did not fully account for all of his im pairm ents; specifically, his m arked lim itation in adapting to changes in the work place and in responding to usual work situations, and his significant spinal pain and restrictions. Claim ant argues that, at a m inim um , the ALJ should have determ ined that Claim ant qualified for a “closed period” of disability, or that he presum ptively becam e disabled at age 50 under the Grids. A. Cla im a n t ’s Cr e d ib ilit y In this case, the ALJ found that Claim ant was not fully credible in his statem ents regarding the intensity, persistence, and disabling effects of his im pairm ents. Under Social Security regulations and rulings, the ALJ evaluates a claim ant’s report of - 31 - sym ptom s using a two-step m ethod. 20 C.F.R. §§ 40 4.1529, 416.929; SSR 96-7p, 1996 WL 374186 (S.S.A. 1996). First, the ALJ m ust decide whether the claim ant’s m edically determ inable m edical and psychological conditions could reasonably be expected to produce the claim ant’s sym ptom s, including pain. 20 C.F.R. §§ 40 4.1529(a), 416.929(a). In other words, a claim ant’s “statem ents about his or her sym ptom s is not enough in itself to establish the existence of a physical or m ental im pairm ent or that the individual is disabled.” SSR 96-7p, 1996 WL 374186, at *2. Instead, there m ust exist som e objective “[m ]edical signs and laboratory findings, established by m edically acceptable clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques” which dem onstrate “the existence of a m edical im pairm ent(s) which results from anatom ical, physiological, or psychological abnorm alities and which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other sym ptom s alleged.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 40 4.1529(b), 416.929(b). Second, after establishing that the claim ant’s conditions could be expected to produce the alleged sym ptom s, the ALJ must evaluate the intensity, persistence, and severity of the sym ptom s to determ ine the extent to which they prevent the claim ant from perform ing basic work activities. Id. §§ 40 4.1529(a), 416.929(a). If the intensity, persistence, or severity of the sym ptom s cannot be established by objective m edical evidence, the ALJ m ust assess the credibility of any statem ents m ade by the claim ant to support the alleged disabling effects. SSR 96-7P, 1996 WL 374186, at *2. In evaluating a claim ant’s credibility regarding his or her sym ptom s, the ALJ will consider “all of the relevant evidence,” including (1) the claimant’s m edical history, signs and laboratory findings, and statem ents from the claim ant, treating sources, and non-treating sources, 20 C.F.R. §§ 40 4.1529(c)(1), 416.929(c)(1); (2) objective m edical evidence, which is obtained from the application of m edically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic - 32 - techniques, id. §§ 40 4.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2); and (3) any other evidence relevant to the claim ant’s sym ptom s, such as evidence of the claim ant's daily activities, specific descriptions of sym ptom s (location, duration, frequency and intensity), precipitating and aggravating factors, m edication or medical treatm ent and resulting side effects received to alleviate sym ptom s, and any other factors relating to functional lim itations and restrictions due to the claim ant’s sym ptom s. Id. §§ 40 4.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3); see also Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 595 (4th Cir. 1996); SSA 96-7P, 1996 WL 374186, at *4-5. In Hines v. Barnhart, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals stated that: Although a claim ant’s allegations about her pain m ay not be discredited solely because they are not substantiated by objective evidence of the pain itself or its severity, they need not be accepted to the extent they are inconsistent with the available evidence, including objective evidence of the underlying im pairm ent, and the extent to which that im pairm ent can reasonably be expected to cause the pain the claim ant alleges he suffers. 453 F.3d 559, 565 n.3 (4th Cir. 20 0 6) (citing Craig, 76 F.3d at 595). The ALJ m ay not reject a claim ant’s allegations of intensity and persistence solely because the available objective m edical evidence does not substantiate the allegations; however, the lack of objective m edical evidence m ay be one factor considered by the ALJ . SSR 96-7P, 1996 WL 374186, at *6. Social Security Ruling 96-7p provides further guidance on how to evaluate a claim ant’s credibility. For exam ple, the Ruling explains that “[o]ne strong indication of the credibility of an individual’s statem ents is their consistency, both internally and with other inform ation in the case record.” Id. at *5. Likewise, a longitudinal m edical record “can be extrem ely valuable in the adjudicator’s evaluation of an individual’s statem ents about pain or other sym ptom s,” as “[v]ery often, this inform ation will have been obtained by the m edical source from the individual and m ay be com pared with the individual’s other statem ents in the case record.” Id. at *6-7. A longitudinal m edical - 33 - record dem onstrating the claim ant’s attem pt to seek treatment for sym ptom s also “lends support to an individual’s allegations ... for the purposes of judging the credibility of the individual’s statem ents.” Id. at *7. On the other hand, “the individual’s statem ents m ay be less credible if the level or frequency of treatm ent is inconsistent with the level of com plaints.” Id. Ultim ately, the ALJ “m ust consider the entire case record and give specific reasons for the weight given to the individual’s statem ents.” Id. at *4. Moreover, the reasons given for the ALJ ’s credibility assessm ent “m ust be grounded in the evidence and articulated in the determ ination or decision.” SSR 96-7p, 1996 WL 374186, at *4. When considering whether an ALJ ’s credibility determ ination is supported by substantial evidence, the court’s role is limited to scrutinizing the record to ascertain whether there is sufficient support for the ALJ ’s conclusion. 42 U.S.C. § 40 5(g) (“[T]he findings of the Com m issioner of Social Security as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive ...”). Moreover, when reviewing the record, the court does not re-weigh conflicting evidence, reach independent determ inations as to credibility, or substitute its own judgm ent for that of the Com m issioner. Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir. 1996). Because the ALJ had the “opportunity to observe the dem eanor and to determ ine the credibility of the claim ant, the ALJ ’s observations concerning these questions are to be given great weight.” Shively v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 987, 989 (4th Cir. 1984). Indeed, the ALJ ’s credibility determ ination “should be accepted by the reviewing court absent exceptional circum stances.” Eldeco, Inc. v. NLRB, 132 F.3d 10 0 7, 10 11 (4th Cir. 1997); see also Bishop v. Com . of Soc. Sec., 583 F.App’x 65, 68 (4th Cir. 20 14). “Exceptional circum stances include cases where a credibility determ ination is unreasonable, contradicts other findings of fact, or is based - 34 - on an inadequate reason or no reason at all.” Eldeco, 132 F.3d at 10 11. Here, the ALJ provided m ultiple reasons for discounting Claimant’s credibility. First, he explained that Claim ant received largely conservative and routine treatm ent for his m usculoskeletal sym ptom s. (Tr. at 19-20 ). In the period shortly after Claim ant’s truck accident, the treatm ent proved effective, culm inating in a notation by Claim ant’s treating physician that Claim ant’s “lum bar com plaints and knee complaints have resolved,” and Claim ant was seeking new em ploym ent. (Id.). The ALJ observed that Claim ant did not obtain additional m edical care for approxim ately six m onths, and when he did go to a physician in J une 20 0 7 for complaints of worsening back pain, Claim ant inexplicably and unexpectedly left the physician’s office while the physician was discussing Claim ant’s case with a colleague. (Tr. at 20 ). Six m onths later, Claim ant sought treatm ent from a pain m anagem ent specialist, Dr. Ulseth, who ordered m edication and physical therapy, which again were conservative and routine m easures. By February 20 0 8, Claim ant reported a decrease of pain sym ptom s with the m edication and stated that physical therapy was also helping. (Id.). “[A]n unexplained inconsistency between the claim ant's characterization of the severity of [his] condition and the treatm ent [he] sought to alleviate that condition is highly probative of the claim ant's credibility.” Mickles v. Shalala, 29 F.3d 918, 930 (4th Cir. 1994) According to the ALJ , there was another gap in Claim ant’s treatm ent between 20 0 8 and 20 10 . In J anuary 20 10 , Claim ant was told by a certified fam ily nurse practitioner that he would need a pain clinic referral; however, Claim ant failed to follow-up on the recom m endation. The ALJ noted that Claim ant received no significant treatm ent the rem ainder of 20 10 or 20 11, suggesting that his sym ptom s during this tim e fram e were not as debilitating as he alleged. (Id.). Claim ant argues that this statem ent - 35 - by the ALJ reflects “an unfair” conclusion and im proper credibility assessm ent. Claim ant points out that he told the ALJ that his treatm ent was lim ited due to his inability to pay the m edical bills. However, Claim ant’s position is not entirely supported by the record; particularly, given his testim ony at the adm inistrative hearing that he received a m edical card in 20 10 . (Tr. at 10 1). “A claim ant's failure to obtain treatm ent can weigh against his credibility unless he has ‘good reasons’ for his failure or noncom pliance.” Bin-Salam on v. Com m issioner of Social Security , No. 4:13– CV– 0 0 0 62, 20 15 WL 30 2835, at *8 (J an. 23. 20 15) (citing Mabe v. Colvin, 4:12cv52, 20 13 WL 60 55239, at *7 (W.D.Va. Nov. 15, 20 13). While lack of funds m ay be a good reason for not pursing expensive m edical treatment, Claim ant had the ability to pay for treatm ent beginning in 20 10 ; accordingly, his reason does not fully explain the gaps in his treatm ent. The ALJ further em phasized that during 20 10 and 20 11, Claim ant underwent evaluations by agency consultants, Dr. Beard and Dr. Nutter, who did not observe any significant abnorm alities when they exam ined Claim ant. (Tr. at 20 ). Both physicians found Claim ant to have equal muscle strength bilaterally, without evidence of atrophy, sensory deficits, or substantially decreased range of m otion. Claim ant had negative straight leg-raising tests and no frank evidence of radicular sym ptom s. When Claim ant began to receive treatm ent in 20 12 at the Roane General Hospital Clinic, he displayed lum bar tenderness and m uscle spasm s, but had negative straight leg-raising tests. Once m ore, Claim ant was treated conservatively with m edication, and he reported im provem ent in his sym ptom s. (Tr. at 21). The ALJ specifically referred to treatm ent notes prepared in J une 20 12 that docum ented Claim ant’s report of “doing well” and working at Walm art. (Id.). The ALJ acknowledged that Claim ant exacerbated his lum bar - 36 - sym ptom s in October 20 12 at work, but the resulting injury led to a spinal surgery in April 20 13, which essentially elim inated Claim ant’s low back com plaints. Consequently, the ALJ reasoned that when Claim ant eventually developed genuinely debilitating sym ptom s, he underwent surgery to eradicate them . The ALJ provides a sim ilar review of Claim ant’ treatm ent and sym ptom s related to his m ental im pairm ents, stressing that Claim ant’s com plaints did not correspond to treatm ent records or findings on m ental status exam inations. For exam ple, although Claim ant com plained of disabling depression, he never received counseling or required inpatient treatm ent. At agency evaluations, Claim ant was described as m aking good eye contact, wearing appropriate clothing, and having adequate hygiene. Although his m ood was described by the exam iners as sad or depressed, Claim ant had norm al thought processes and content, and even sm iled and joked at one evaluation. (Tr. at 22). Claim ant was given m edication to relieve his depression, and he generally reported decreased sym ptom s with the m edication. Claim ant contends that the ALJ im properly considered Claim ant’s failure to obtain eyeglasses and hearing aids as evidence that his com plaints regarding loss of vision and loss of hearing were not credible. Claim ant stresses that he did not purchase those aids because he did not have the m oney to do so, and his m edical card did not cover those item s. Accordingly, in Claim ant’s view, the ALJ erred by considering his failure to obtain eyeglasses and hearing aids as evidence of poor credibility. Claim ant’s criticism is unfounded. The ALJ found Claim ant’s lack of effort in pursuing hearing aids and glasses as evidence of a lack of credibility, because, despite his em phatically-stated desire to correct those deficits, Claim ant never pursued recomm ended options for financial assistance. For exam ple, a consulting exam iner suggested that Claim ant - 37 - contact the Lions Club to inquire about help with purchasing eyeglasses. (Tr. at 22). Sim ilarly, another health care provider, Dr. J am es Magnussen, advised Claim ant to contact the West Virginia Bureau of Vocational Rehabilitation to obtain financing for hearing aids. (Tr. at 654). Claim ant apparently did neither. “[B]efore a claimant’s failure to seek treatm ent can be ignored due to a financial hardship claim , ‘all possible resources (e.g., clinics, charitable and public assistance agencies, etc.), m ust be explored.’” Sm alls v. Com m issioner of Social Sec., C/ A No. 0 :0 8-cv-211-GRA, 20 0 9 WL 691931, at *7 n.7 (D.S.C. Mar. 12, 20 0 9) (quoting SSR 82-59, 1975-1982 Soc.Sec.Rep.Serv. 793, 1982 WL 31384 (S.S.A. 1982); see, also, Na-Tusch v. Colvin, No. 1:13– CV– 260 – GCM– DCK, 20 14 WL 40 80 0 87, at *7 (W.D.N.C. J un. 27, 20 14) (holding that a claim ant m ust show that she tried to get treatm ent, but was denied due to a lack of funds in order “to avoid a negative credibility inference from a failure to pursue treatm ent.”). Claim ant also argues that the ALJ erroneously considered Claim ant’s receipt of unem ploym ent benefits as evidence adversely affecting his credibility. Claim ant relies on SSA Mem orandum 10 -1258 (Aug. 9, 20 10 ) for the proposition that the pursuit or receipt of unem ploym ent benefits should not be given “inordinate weight” in assessing a claim ant’s credibility. Mem orandum 10 -1258 explicitly discusses whether the receipt of unem ploym ent benefits precludes a finding of disability under the Social Security Act, and concludes that it does not. Nonetheless, the Mem orandum m akes clear that the receipt of unem ploym ent benefits m ay be considered as one factor in determ ining whether a claim ant is disabled. On the issue of credibility, an application for unem ploym ent benefits is likewise a piece of significant evidence. As the ALJ in this case pointed out, to apply for unem ploym ent benefits, a claim ant m ust “certify that he - 38 - [is] physically and m entally able, willing, and available to work.” (Tr. at 23). Such a certification contradicts Claim ant’s representation that his sym ptom s were so intense and persistent, he was unable to perform basic work-related functions. As such, it is a relevant piece of the credibility assessm ent. See Baker v. Colvin, 20 15 WL 3562164, at *14 (D.S.C. J un. 5, 20 15) (citing Black v. Apfel, 143 F.3d 383 (8th Cir.1998) (stating that acceptance of unem ploym ent benefits, which entails an assertion of the ability to work, is facially inconsistent with a claim for disability)); Martin v. Colv in, 20 15 WL 1346990 , at *4 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 24, 20 15) (“Although the ‘receipt of unem ploym ent com pensation does not in itself prove ability to work,’ Lackey v. Celebrezze, 349 F.2d 76, 79 (4th Cir.1965), num erous courts within this circuit have held that the acceptance of unem ploym ent benefits m ay weigh against an individual's credibility”); and Bird v. Colvin, 20 15 WL 10 620 40 , at *9 (D.Md. Mar. 10 , 20 15) (finding that consideration of unem ploym ent benefits was proper in m aking a credibility finding). Finally, Claim ant com plains that the ALJ acted in an inappropriate and prejudicial m anner by using Claim ant’s em barrassm ent over his lack of education as evidence of poor credibility. The ALJ noted that Claim ant had provided inconsistent evidence regarding the extent of his education, reporting in his application for benefits that he com pleted the twelfth grade, and later stating that he only com pleted the eighth grade and dropped out in the ninth grade. (Tr. at 22). According to the ALJ , Claim ant’s inconsistent statem ents “[place] his credibility at issue.” (Id.). Certainly, one valid way to m easure a claim ant’s credibility is to gauge the consistency of his statem ents as set forth in the record. Evidence dem onstrating that a claim ant is not entirely truthful or is incorrect about basic inform ation he provided to his treating physicians, the SSA, or its consultants is one factor to be considered by the ALJ when assessing the reliability of - 39 - the claim ant’s statem ents regarding the severity of his sym ptom s. See Stubblefield v. Astrue, No. 4:0 9– CV– 10 72 (CEJ ), 20 10 WL 2696670 , at *6-7 (E.D.Mo. J ul. 6, 20 10 ) (holding that false or incorrect inform ation given by a claim ant about his em ploym ent and com pliance with m edication instructions was properly considered in the ALJ ’s credibility determ ination). Here, the ALJ properly assessed Claim ant’s credibility using the two-step process required by applicable rulings and regulations. The ALJ considered Claim ant’s statem ents, objective m edical findings, m edical treatm ent, activities of daily living, financial issues, and the m edical source statem ents. The ALJ resolved inconsistences in the evidence, relied on specific pieces of evidence, and weighed the m edicals source statem ents. Moreover, the ALJ ’s written decision contained “specific reasons for the finding on credibility, supported by the evidence in the case record, and ... [was] sufficiently specific to m ake clear to the in dividual and to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the individual’s statem ents and the reasons for that weight.” SSR 96-7p, 1996 WL 374186, at *4. Therefore, the Court finds that the ALJ followed proper agency procedures in assessing Claim ant’s credibility, and the ALJ ’s determ ination is supported by substantial evidence. B. Cla im a n t ’s R FC Fin d in g With respect to his RFC finding, Claim ant argues that the ALJ erred when concluding that Claim ant could perform jobs at the light exertional level. According to Claim ant, the ALJ (1) failed to fully account for Claim ant’s m ental im pairm ents and his severe lum bar pain; (2) failed to fully incorporate the opinions of the consultative experts in the RFC finding; and (3) failed to consider awarding Claim ant benefits for a - 40 - “closed period” to account for the years prior to Claim ant’s successful back surgery, during which he suffered from unrelenting lum bar pain and substantial restriction. Residual functional capacity is the claim ant’s “ability to do sustained workrelated physical and m ental activities in a work setting on a regular and continuing basis.” SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *1 (S.S.A. 1996). RFC is a m easurem ent of the m o s t that a claim ant can do despite his or her lim itations and is used at steps four and five of the sequential evaluation to determ ine whether a claim ant can still do past relevant work and, if not, whether there is other work that the claim ant is capable of perform ing. Id. Social Security Ruling 96-8p provides guidance on how an ALJ should determ ine a claim ant’s RFC. According to the Ruling, the ALJ ’s RFC analysis requires “a function-by-function assessm ent based upon all of the relevant evidence of an individual’s ability to do work-related activities.” Id. at *3. Only by exam ining specific functional abilities can the ALJ determ ine (1) whether a claimant can perform past relevant work as it was actually, or is generally, perform ed; (2) what exertional level is appropriate for the claim ant; and (3) whether the claim ant “is capable of doing the full range of work contem plated by the exertional level.” Id. Indeed, “[w]ithout a careful consideration of an individual’s functional capacities to support an RFC assessm ent based on an exertional category, the adjudicator m ay either overlook lim itations or restrictions that would narrow the ranges and types of work an individual m ay be able to do, or find that the individual has lim itations or restrictions that he or she does not actually have.” Id. at *4. In determ ining a claim ant’s RFC, the ALJ “m ust include a narrative discussion describing how the evidence supports each conclusion, citing specific m edical facts (e.g. laboratory findings) and nonm edical evidence (e.g., daily activities, observations).” Id. - 41 - at *7. A proper RFC assessm ent requires the ALJ to “discuss the individual’s ability to perform sustained work activities in an ordinary work setting on a regular and continuing basis (e.g. 8 hours a day, for 5 days a week, or an equivalent work schedule), and describe the m axim um am ount of each work-related activity the individual can perform based on the evidence available in the record.” Id. Further, the ALJ m ust “explain how any m aterial inconsistencies or am biguities in the evidence in the case record were considered and resolved.” SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *7. Moreover, in considering allegations of sym ptom s such as pain, the RFC assessm ent m ust 1) “contain a thorough discussion and analysis of the objective m edical and other evidence, including the individual’s com plaints of pain and other sym ptom s and the adjudicator’s personal observations, if appropriate”; 2) “include a resolution of any inconsistencies in the evidence as a whole”; and 3) “set forth a logical explanation of the effects of the sym ptom s, including pain, on the individual’s ability to work.” Id. The ALJ m ust discuss “why reported sym ptom -related functional lim itations and restrictions can or cannot reasonably be accepted as consistent with the m edical and other evidence.” Id. Sim ilarly, the ALJ “m ust always consider and address m edical source opinions” in assessing the Claim ant’s RFC. Id. As with sym ptom allegations, “[i]f the RFC assessm ent conflicts with an opinion from a m edical source, the adjudicator m ust explain why the opinion was not adopted.” Id. A review of the ALJ ’s written decision demonstrates that he generally m et the requirem ents of SSR 96-8p in evaluating Claim ant’s RFC. Indeed, the Claim ant provides few specific criticism s of the ALJ ’s analysis. In fact, rather than an indictm ent of the process used by the ALJ , Claim ant’s challenge is prim arily to the outcom e of the analysis. Notwithstanding the absence of detailed criticism s, Claim ant is exactly right to - 42 - focus on the ALJ ’s exertional finding. As Claim ant points out, if he was lim ited to sedentary work, then he was entitled to a finding of disability to begin no later than his fiftieth birthday in 20 10 . In the alternative, Claim ant contends that, at a m inim um , he was entitled to a closed period of disability for the tim e between his truck accident and his surgical repair.2 Claim ant argues that the ALJ ’s RFC finding is not representative of Claim ant’s level of dysfunction during that tim e fram e. For these reasons, the Court has closely exam ined the ALJ ’s finding that Claim ant was capable of perform ing light level exertional work both before and after his successful back surgery in April 20 13. In perform ing this review, the Court bears in m ind that it is neither tasked, nor authorized, to conduct a de novo review of the record. To the contrary, the Court m ust uphold the Com m issioner’s decision if it is supported by substantial evidence, regardless of whether the Court agrees or disagrees with the decision. The burden on the ALJ to m eet the “substantial evidence” bar is not particularly heavy given that substantial evidence is defined as m ore than a scintilla, but less than a preponderance, of the evidence of record. Applying this fram ework, the Court exam ines the ALJ ’s RFC finding. The ALJ found that Claim ant was capable of perform ing light level exertional work during the entire period from the alleged onset of disability in J uly 20 0 6 through the date of the decision in Novem ber 20 13. Light work is defined as: [L]ifting no m ore than 20 pounds at a tim e with frequent lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to 10 pounds. Even though the weight lifted m ay be very little, a job is in this category when it requires a good deal of walking or standing, or when it involves sitting m ost of the tim e with som e pushing and pulling of arm or leg controls. To be considered capable of perform ing a full or wide range of light work, you m ust have the 2 Title 20 C.F.R. §§ 40 4.316, 40 4.1594, 416.994 provide that the SSA m ay award disability benefits on a continuing basis or for a finite period. “It is the policy of the Social Security Adm inistration to establish a closed period of disability where evidence indicates that a claim ant was disabled for a continuous period of twelve (12) m onths, even if the claimant is no longer disabled by the tim e a determ ination is m ade.” Pum phrey v. Com m issioner of Social Sec., Civil Action No. 3:14– CV– 7120 15 WL 3868354, at *30 (N.D.W.Va. J un. 23, 20 15) (quoting Program Operations Manual Sy stem (“POMS”) DI § 25510 .0 0 1). - 43 - ability to do substantially all of these activities. If som eone can do light work, we determ ine that he or she can also do sedentary work, unless there are additional lim iting factors such as loss of fine dexterity or inability to sit for long periods of tim e. 20 C.F.R. §§ 40 4.1567(b), 416.967(b). The ability to stand and walk required by this exertional level is further clarified in SSR 83-10 , which provides that light level jobs often require frequent walking and standing—“the prim ary difference between sedentary and m ost light jobs.” SSR 83-10 , 1983 WL 31251, at *5 (S.S.A. 1983). According to SSR 83-10 : “Frequent” m eans occurring from one-third to two-thirds of the tim e. Since frequent lifting or carrying requires being on one's feet up to twothirds of a workday, the full range of light work requires standing or walking, off and on, for a total of approxim ately 6 hours of an 8-hour workday. Sitting m ay occur interm ittently during the rem aining tim e. The lifting requirem ent for the m ajority of light jobs can be accom plished with occasional, rather than frequent, stooping. Many unskilled light jobs are perform ed prim arily in one location, with the ability to stand being m ore critical than the ability to walk. They require use of arm s and hands to grasp and to hold and turn objects, and they generally do not require use of the fingers for fine activities to the extent required in m uch sedentary work. Id., at *6. The ALJ addressed eight m edical source statem ents that expressly evaluated Claim ant’s exertional capabilities. He gave som e weight to seven of the opinions and significant weight to one opinion. (Tr. at 23-25). First, the ALJ discussed the restrictions placed on Claim ant by Dr. Demm i in Septem ber 20 0 6, shortly after Claimant’s truck accident. The ALJ noted that by J anuary 20 0 7, Dr. Dem m i had rem oved all exertional restrictions, finding that Claim ant’s injuries had largely resolved. (Tr. at 23, 532). The ALJ gave this opinion significant weight. Thus, even if Claim ant was incapable of perform ing light work im m ediately after his accident, the lim itations did not exist for at least twelve continuous m onths as required to m ake a finding of disability. Next, the ALJ considered opinions by Dr. Am y Clunn, which were expressed in - 44 - May 20 0 7 after she conducted an evaluation of Claim ant for Workers’ Com pensation. (Id.). Dr. Clunn opined that Claim ant had not reached m axim um m edical im provem ent and, for the tim e being, she recom m ended no lifting greater than twenty pounds and no repetitive bending. (Tr. at 529). Therefore, these opinions were not inconsistent with an RFC finding of light level exertional work. The ALJ gave this opinion “som e” weight, but observed that subsequent opinions were “m ore telling of the claim ant’s functional lim itations.” (Tr. at 23). The ALJ also reviewed an opinion expressed by Dr. Eric Puestow in October 20 0 7. (Id.). Dr. Puestow found Claim ant capable of occasionally lifting and carrying fifty pounds, frequently lifting and carrying twenty-five pounds, and sitting, walking, and standing six hours each in an eight-hour workday with unlim ited ability to push and pull. (Tr. at 560 ). This evaluation plainly determ ined that Claim ant was capable of doing m ore than light exertional work. The ALJ gave this opinion som e weight, explaining that subsequent treatm ent records and opinions supported the conclusion that Claim ant was m ore functionally lim ited than determ ined by Dr. Puestow. (Tr. at 23). The ALJ reached a sim ilar determ ination with respect to the March 20 0 8 opinion of Dr. Stephen Burge. (Id.). Like Dr. Puestow, Dr. Burge opined that Claim ant could occasionally lift and carry fifty pounds, frequently lift and carry twenty-five pounds, and could sit, walk, and stand six hours each in an eight-hour workday, with unlim ited ability to push and pull. (Tr. at 584). The fifth opinion addressed by the ALJ was prepared by Dr. Kip Beard in May 20 10 . (Tr. at 23-24, 670 ). Dr. Beard felt that Claim ant could lift twenty pounds frequently, and up to 10 0 pounds occasionally. He opined that Claim ant could stand and/ or walk a total of four hours in an eight-hour workday and could sit four hours. - 45 - Claim ant could frequently push and pull. (Tr. at 672). Although, Dr. Beard’s lim itations on standing and walking were less than the six hours set forth in SSR 83-10 , Claim ant’s RFC would still properly be expressed in term s of light level exertional work. SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *3 (“At step 5 of the sequential evaluation process, RFC m u s t be expressed in term s of, or related to, the exertional categories when the adjudicator determ ines whether there is other work the individual can do.”) (em phasis added). Because the analysis subtly shifts from an assessm ent of the claim ant’s functional lim itations and capabilities to the identification of the claim ant’s potential occupational base, m atching the appropriate exertional level to the claim ant’s RFC is the starting point. As the RFC is intended to reflect the m o s t the claim ant can do, rather than the least, the ALJ expresses the RFC in term s of the highest level of exertional work that the claim ant is generally capable of perform ing, but which is “insufficient to allow substantial perform ance of work at greater exertional levels.” SSR 83-10 , 1983 WL 31251, at *2; see also SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *2 (recognizing RFC represents m ost that individual can do given lim itations). From there, the ALJ m ust determ ine whether the claim ant’s RFC perm its him to perform the full range of work contem plated by the relevant exertional level, or a reduced range. SSR 83-10 , 1983 WL 31251, at *5. “[I]n order for an individual to do a full range of work at a given exertional level the individual m ust be able to perform substantially all of the exertional and nonexertional functions required in work at that level.” SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *3. If the claim ant’s com bined exertional and nonexertional impairm ents allow him to perform som e of the occupations classified at a particular exertional level, but not all of them , the occupational base at that exertional level will be reduced to the extent that the claim ant’s restrictions and lim itations prevent him from doing the full range of work - 46 - contem plated by the exertional level. See SSR 83-14, 1983 WL 31254, at *6. However, the exertional level expressed in the RFC finding does not change. Instead, a vocational expert is generally consulted to determ ine what occupations within the reduced occupational base of the exertional level are still available to the claim ant. In this case, the ALJ was not required to incorporate Dr. Beard’s standing and walking lim itations in the RFC finding, because Claim ant underwent surgical repair of his lum bar spine before his RFC was assessed, and the surgery effectively elim inated the sym ptom s that gave rise to Dr. Beard’s lim itations. In J uly 20 11, Dr. Stephen Nutter exam ined Claim ant and prepared a m edical source statem ent that was considered by the ALJ . (Tr. at 24). Dr. Nutter opined that Claim ant could frequently lift and carry twenty pounds and could occasionally lift and carry up to fifty pounds. (Tr. at 692). He believed Claim ant could stand four hours in and eight-hour work day, could walk three hours, and could sit five hours. (Tr. at 693). He indicated that Claim ant had unlim ited ability to push and pull and could continuously operate foot controls. (Tr. at 694). The ALJ gave the opinion som e weight, again indicating that while the opinion was consistent with the then current evidence, Claim ant’s condition im proved after back surgery. (Tr. at 24). The seventh opinion reviewed by the ALJ was prepared by Dr. Paul Craig in August 20 11 at the request of Claim ant’s counsel. (Tr. at 24). The ALJ did not give any special significance to Dr. Craig’s opinion that Claim ant was disabled, but gave som e weight to his RFC assessm ent. Dr. Craig opined that Claim ant could lift and carry fifteen to twenty pounds occasionally, could not lift and carry anything frequently, could stand and walk up to six hours per day and could sit six hours out of an eight-hour work day. (Tr. at 714-15). - 47 - Finally, the ALJ reviewed an opinion prepared by agency consultant Rakesh Wahi, M.D. on March 11, 20 13, less than one m onth before Claim ant’s back surgery. (Tr. at 24). Dr. Wahi found that Claim ant could continuously lift and carry up to twenty pounds, could sit six hours in an eight-hour work day, but could only stand and walk a m axim um of two hours. (Tr. at 80 0 -0 1). He felt Claim ant could frequently push, pull, and use foot controls. (Tr. at 80 2). The ALJ found the opinion consistent with Claim ant’s condition im m ediately prior to his back surgery, but gave it only “som e” weight in light of Claim ant’s im provem ent post-operatively. Consequently, while Dr. Wahi’s opinion reflected an increased im pairm ent during the m onth prior to Claim ant’s surgical correction, his opinion does not establish that Claim ant suffered sym ptom s m eeting this level of intensity and severity for at least twelve continuous m onths. In addition to the opinion evidence, the ALJ discussed Claim ant’s longitudinal m edical record. (Tr. at 19-23). He indicated that according to the records, Claim ant’s 20 0 6 lum bar and knee injuries, which in part form ed the basis of his applications, resolved by J anuary 20 0 7, and Claim ant received no medical treatm ent until Decem ber 20 0 7 when he was sent to a pain m anagem ent specialist by Workers’ Com pensation. (Tr. at 19-20 ). After that, he received conservative treatm ent, including m edication and physical therapy, and im proved. (Tr. at 20 ). Claim ant did not seek or receive additional substantive treatm ent until April 20 12, when he established care with Dr. Grant Parkins at the Roane General Medical Clinic for com plaints of back pain secondary to a recent fall in the shower. Essentially, Claim ant had reinjured his back and was experiencing a short-term exacerbation of sym ptom s. However, Claim ant was treated conservatively with m edication and began to im prove. (Tr. at 20 -21). Indeed, Claim ant obtained em ploym ent at Walm art stocking shelves within a few m onths of the fall. - 48 - In October 20 12, Claim ant again fell; this tim e, he fell off the back of a pick-up truck, striking his lower back and buttock. (Tr. at 867). He experienced acute worsening of his chronic back pain, which resulted in his assessm ent by a neurosurgeon, (id.), and ultim ately his back surgery. (Tr. at 847-52). Within six weeks after the procedure, Claim ant reported com plete relief from his back and leg pain. (Tr. at 824). Accordingly, a review of the record supports the ALJ ’s interpretation of Claim ant’s condition; that being, that the exertional restrictions caused by Claim ant’s back and leg pain rem ained relatively constant during the period at issue, with the exception of a few short-term exacerbations of sym ptom s that culm inated in surgery. By May 20 13, Claim ant’s underlying back problem s had been definitely addressed, and the sym ptom s resolved. Thus, there was no continuous twelve-m onth period when Claim ant’s m axim um capacity to perform work-related functions fell below the level of light exertional work. See Rosales v. Colvin, No. CV– 12– 1550 – PHX– GMS, 20 13 WL 1410 387, at *4 (D. Ariz. Apr. 8, 20 13) (holding that in order to be entitled to consideration for a closed period of disability, the claim ant m ust show that he was disabled “for a period of n o t le s s than twelve m onths.”). Nonetheless, Claim ant is correct that the ALJ could have been m ore explicit in his written decision with respect to a “closed period” of disability, if for no other reason than to m ake it clear that he considered Claim ant’s applications in that context. Still, the ALJ found that Claim ant was not disabled at any tim e from his alleged disability onset date through the date of the ALJ ’s decision. “Im plicit in this finding is the fact that [Claim ant] was not entitled to a closed period of disability at any relevant time.” Atw ood v. Astrue, Civil No. 5:11CV0 0 2– RLV– DSC, 20 11 WL 793840 8, at *6 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 28, 20 11). Assum ing for argum ent’s sake that the ALJ ’s failure to expressly raise and reject a - 49 - closed period of disability was erroneous, then the Court finds it to be harm less error. Courts have routinely applied a harm less error analysis to adm inistrative decisions that do not fully com port with the procedural requirem ents of the agency's regulations, but for which rem and “would be m erely a waste of tim e and m oney.” See, e.g., Jenkins v. Astrue, 20 0 9 WL 10 10 870 at *4 (D.Kan. Apr. 14, 20 0 9) (citing Kerner v. Celebrezze, 340 F.2d 736, 740 (2d Cir. 1965)). The Fourth Circuit has em ployed a sim ilar analysis in the context of Social Security disability determ inations. See Morgan v. Barnhart, 142 F.App'x 716, 722– 23 (4th Cir. 20 0 5) (unpublished); Bishop v. Barnhart, 78 F.App'x 265, 268 (4th Cir. 20 0 3) (unpublished). In general, rem and of a procedurally deficient decision is not necessary “absent a showing that the [com plainant] has been prejudiced on the m erits or deprived of substantial rights because of the agency's procedural lapses.” Connor v. United States Civil Service Com m ission, 721 F.2d 10 54, 10 56 (6th Cir. 1983); Burch v. Astrue, 20 11 WL 40 25450 , at *6 (W.D.N.C J uly 5, 20 11) (citing Cam p v. Massanari, 22 F.App'x 311 (4th Cir. 20 0 1)) (holding that a claim ant m ust show that, absent error, the decision m ight have been different). An ALJ ’s error is harm less when it does not substantively prejudice the claim ant. See Mascio v. Colvin, 780 F.3d 632, 639 (4th Cir. 20 15) (finding that an ALJ ’s error in assessing a claim ant’s credibility after, instead of before, determ ining his RFC was be harm less so long as the ALJ conducted a proper credibility assessm ent); Tanner v. Com m 'r of Soc. Sec., No. 14– 1272, 60 2 F.Appx. 95, 10 1 (4th Cir. 20 15) (finding an ALJ 's error to be harm less where it was “highly unlikely, given the m edical evidence of record, that a rem and to the agency would change the Com m issioner's finding of nondisability”); Austin v. Astrue, No. 7:0 6– CV– 0 0 622, 20 0 7 WL 30 70 60 1, *6 (W.D.Va. Oct. 18, 20 0 7) (“[E]rrors are harm less in social security cases when it is inconceivable - 50 - that a different adm inistrative conclusion would have been reached absent the error”) (citing Cam p, 22 F. App'x at 311). In order for a reviewing court to find an error harm less, the court m ust be able to plainly see from the ALJ ’s written decision that the prejudicial effect of the ALJ ’s m istake was, in som e way, rem edied, so that the final determ ination of nondisability is in truth supported by substantial evidence. Here, the ALJ thoroughly exam ined, considered, and discussed the status of Claim ant’s physical and m ental im pairm ents over the m ore than seven years between the alleged onset of disability and the written decision. The ALJ also fully analyzed the m edical source opinions, as well as Claim ant’s activities, statem ents, and testim ony over that period of tim e. The ALJ ’s final determ ination that Claim ant’s RFC fell within the light exertional level, with nonexertional lim itations, was well-reasoned and substantially supported by the record.3 Consequently, rem anding the case for the purpose of having the ALJ confirm the absence of a closed period of disability, without any reasonable likelihood of a different outcom e, would be a waste of tim e and resources. Thus, the Court finds that the ALJ ’s RFC finding is supported by substantial evidence, and any error that occurred in the analytical process or in writing the decision, caused no prejudice to Claim ant and therefore was harm less. 3 Claim ant also criticizes the ALJ ’s failure to m ore fully account for his m arked lim itation in the ability to respond to usual work situations and adapt to changes in the work environm ent. The ALJ specifically m entioned this lim itation in his RFC discussion and accounted for it by restricting Claim ant to jobs “in a stable work environm ent with few if any changes.” (Tr. at 18, 26). Claim ant provides no rationale for his contention that the restriction in the RFC, as written, is insufficient to address the m arked lim itation. Contrary to Claim ant’s position, the Court finds the above-stated language, which was included in the ALJ ’s hypothetical questions to the vocational expert, adequately accounts for Claimant’s m arked lim itation in that single elem ent of social functioning. - 51 - VIII. Co n clu s io n After a careful consideration of the evidence of record, the Court finds that the Com m issioner’s decision IS supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, by J udgm ent Order entered this day, the final decision of the Com m issioner is AFFIRMED and this m atter is D ISMISSED from the docket of this Court. The Clerk of this Court is directed to transm it copies of this Order to all counsel of record. EN TERED : August 7, 20 15 - 52 -

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.