United States District Court, E.D. Oklahoma
OPINION AND ORDER
STEVEN
P. SHREDER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The
claimant Dennis Christopher, Jr. requests judicial review of
a denial of benefits by the Commissioner of the Social
Security Administration pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
He appeals the Commissioner's decision and asserts the
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred in
determining he was not disabled. For the reasons set forth
below, the Commissioner's decision is REVERSED and the
case REMANDED to the ALJ for further proceedings.
Social
Security Law and Standard of Review
Disability under the Social Security Act is defined as the
“inability to engage in any substantial gainful
activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or
mental impairment[.]” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). A
claimant is disabled under the Social Security Act
“only if his physical or mental impairment or
impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable
to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age,
education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of
substantial gainful work which exists in the national
economy[.]” Id. § 423 (d)(2)(A). Social
security regulations implement a five-step sequential process
to evaluate a disability claim. See 20 C.F.R.
§§ 404.1520, 416.920.[1]Section 405(g) limits the scope of
judicial review of the Commissioner's decision to two
inquiries: whether the decision was supported by substantial
evidence and whether correct legal standards were applied.
See Hawkins v. Chater, 113 F.3d 1162, 1164 (10th
Cir. 1997). Substantial evidence is “‘more than a
mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.'” Richardson v. Perales, 402
U.S. 389, 401 (1971), quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v.
NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938); see also Clifton v.
Chater, 79 F.3d 1007, 1009 (10th Cir. 1996). The Court
may not reweigh the evidence or substitute its discretion for
the Commissioner's. See Casias v. Secretary of Health
& Human Services, 933 F.2d 799, 800 (10th Cir.
1991). But the Court must review the record as a whole, and
“[t]he substantiality of evidence must take into
account whatever in the record fairly detracts from its
weight.” Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340
U.S. 474, 488 (1951); see also Casias, 933 F.2d at
800-01.
Claimant's
Background
The
claimant was twenty-nine years old at the time of the
administrative hearing (Tr. 27, 154). He has two years of
college and has worked as a customer service representative
and home health aide (Tr. 32, 46, 169). The claimant alleges
he has been unable to work since March 1, 2013, due to
bipolar I disorder, social anxiety disorder, depression with
psychotic feature, and obsessive compulsive disorder (Tr.
168).
Procedural
History
On
September 24, 2015, the claimant applied for disability
insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act,
42 U.S.C. §§ 401-434 (Tr. 154-55). His application
was denied. ALJ Doug Gabbard, II conducted an administrative
hearing and determined that the claimant was not disabled in
a written opinion dated October 6, 2016 (Tr. 13-22). The
Appeals Council denied review, so the ALJ's written
opinion represents the Commissioners' final decision for
purposes of this appeal. See 20 C.F.R. §
404.981.
Decision
of the Administrative Law Judge
The
ALJ made his decision at step five of the sequential
evaluation. He found that the claimant had the residual
functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform medium
work as defined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(c), except he
could not climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds. The ALJ further
limited the claimant to semi-skilled work (work which
requires understanding, remembering, and carrying out some
detailed skills, but does not require doing more complex work
duties); interpersonal contact with supervisors and coworkers
on a superficial work basis; no contact with the general
public; normal, regular work breaks; and only occasional
workplace changes (Tr. 17-18). The ALJ concluded that
although the claimant could not return to his past relevant
work, he was nevertheless not disabled because there was
other work he could perform in the national economy, e.
g., industrial cleaner, and laundry worker I (Tr.
20-21).
Review
The
claimant contends that the ALJ erred by failing to properly
evaluate the opinion of treating physician Dr. Teresa Farrow.
The Court agrees, and the decision of the Commissioner must
therefore be reversed and the case remanded to the ALJ for
further proceedings.
The ALJ
found the claimant's morbid obesity, hypothyroidism,
affective disorder, anxiety, and personality disorder were
severe impairments, and that his hearing loss, tinnitus,
bilateral nerve damage, hypertension, shortness of breath,
and foot swelling were nonsevere (Tr. 15-16). The relevant
medical evidence reveals that Dr. Farrow regularly treated
the claimant from October 2014 through at least August 2016,
the last treatment note in the record (Tr. 247-49, 263-67,
282-89, 311-21). Her diagnoses included, inter alia,
bipolar disorder, depressed, severe, with psychotic features;
panic disorder with agoraphobia; generalized anxiety
disorder; social phobia; and obsessive compulsive disorder
(Tr. 249). Dr. Farrow's treatment notes reflect that the
claimant's symptoms waxed and waned, but she consistently
noted he had a depressed and anxious mood, congruent affect,
fair insight, and fair concentration (Tr. 247-49, 263-65,
282-84, 287-90, 311-16). Dr. Farrow also generally noted that
the claimant's status was improving, however, she noted
his status was worsening in June 2016 and she noted it was
stable in August 2016 (Tr. 265, 284, 289, 313, 316).
On June
20, 2016, Dr. Farrow completed a Medical Source Statement
(“MSS”). She opined that the claimant would be
absent from work about three or more days per month due to
depression, anxiety, frequent suicidal ideations, no energy,
no motivation, panic attacks, and occasional hallucinations
and paranoia (Tr. 298). As to unskilled work requirements,
Dr. Farrow opined that in a routine work setting, the
claimant could understand, remember, and carry out simple
instructions, but could not make simple work-related
decisions; respond appropriately to supervision, coworkers,
or work situations; deal with changes; maintain concentration
and attention for extended periods; handle normal work
stress; or attend any ...