Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bernier v. Colvin

United States District Court, D. Maine

January 2, 2015

JEFFERY BERNIER, Plaintiff
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant

MEMORANDUM DECISION [1]

JOHN H. RICH, III, Magistrate Judge.

This Social Security Disability ("SSD") and Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") appeal raises the question of whether the administrative law judge supportably found the plaintiff capable of returning to past relevant work as an airplane cleaner or a truck loader/material handler. The plaintiff seeks remand on the basis that this finding was predicated on a determination of his residual functional capacity ("RFC") that is unsupported by substantial evidence. See Plaintiff's Itemized Statement of Errors ("Statement of Errors") (ECF No. 11) at 2-7. I agree and, accordingly, vacate the decision and remand this case for further proceedings consistent herewith.

Pursuant to the commissioner's sequential evaluation process, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920; Goodermote v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 690 F.2d 5, 6 (1st Cir. 1982), the administrative law judge found, in relevant part, that the plaintiff met the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act through March 31, 2012, Finding 1, Record at 13; that he had severe impairments of depression, anxiety disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder ("ADHD"), and avoidant personality disorder, Finding 3, id.; that he had the RFC to perform a full range of work at all exertional levels but with the following nonexertional limitations: he was limited to routine tasks, meaning nothing greater than semi-skilled work, with only occasional decision making and no more than occasional workplace changes, and he would have the ability to interact with members the public but would not be able to tolerate the responsibility of addressing their complaints or concerns, Finding 5, id. at 16; that he was capable of performing past relevant work as an airplane cleaner or a truck loader/material handler, which did not require the performance of work-related activities precluded by his RFC, Finding 6, id. at 21; and that he, therefore, had not been disabled from December 1, 2007, his alleged onset date of disability, through the date of the decision, August 10, 2012, Finding 7, id. at 22. The Appeals Council declined to review the decision, id. at 1-3, making the decision the final determination of the commissioner, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.981, 416.1481; Dupuis v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 869 F.2d 622, 623 (1st Cir. 1989).

The standard of review of the commissioner's decision is whether the determination made is supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3); Manso-Pizarro v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 76 F.3d 15, 16 (1st Cir. 1996). In other words, the determination must be supported by such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support the conclusion drawn. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971); Rodriguez v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 647 F.2d 218, 222 (1st Cir. 1981).

The administrative law judge reached Step 4 of the sequential evaluation process, at which stage the claimant bears the burden of proving inability to return to past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f); Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 n.5 (1987). At this step, the commissioner must make findings of the plaintiff's RFC and the physical and mental demands of past work and determine whether the plaintiff's RFC would permit performance of that work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f); Social Security Ruling 82-62 ("SSR 82-62"), reprinted in West's Social Security Reporting Service Rulings 1975-1982, at 813.

I. Discussion

In determining the plaintiff's RFC, the administrative law judge effectively rejected all three expert opinions of record bearing on his mental impairments. He gave little weight to the opinions of agency nonexamining consultants David Margolis, Ph.D., and Martin Koretzky, Ph.D., that the plaintiff's mental impairments were nonsevere, and little weight to the opinion of treating psychologist Fredric Kristal, Ph.D., that the plaintiff had marked limitations in his ability to sustain concentration and pace and to adapt, and that his longstanding depression and social anxiety would make it difficult for him to adapt to the pressures and demands of a typical work setting or to carry out the demands of a job that involved memory and concentration. See Record at 21.

Then, the administrative law judge crafted the plaintiff's RFC based on the raw medical evidence and other evidence of record, including the plaintiff's own statements. See id. at 17-21. As this court has noted, "an adjudicator's RFC assessment must be supported by substantial evidence." Bard v. Social Sec. Admin. Comm'r, 736 F.Supp.2d 270, 277 (D. Me. 2010). "Unless the degree of limitation would be obvious to a layperson as a matter of common sense, an administrative law judge lacks the qualifications to determine RFC based on raw medical evidence and must rely on the findings of a medical expert." Id.

In her brief and at oral argument, the commissioner contended that the administrative law judge made a commonsense judgment in this case, citing Gordils v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 921 F.2d 327 (1st Cir. 1990), and two of its progeny in this court, Kenney v. Colvin, No. 2:13-cv-296-GZS, 2014 WL 3548986 (D. Me. July 17, 2014), and Dandreo v. Astrue, Civil No. 09-347-P-H, 2010 WL 2076090 (D. Me. May 20, 2010) (rec. dec., aff'd June 9, 2010). See Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Itemized Statement of Specific Errors ("Opposition") (ECF No. 14) at 4.

In Gordils, the First Circuit held that an administrative law judge justifiably considered the report of an examining consultant evidence for the conclusion that a claimant retained the RFC to perform a full range of sedentary work when the consultant found no evidence of a disabling back impairment beyond the observation that the claimant likely had a "weaker back." Gordils, 921 F.2d at 329.

In Kenney, this court held that an administrative law judge made a permissible commonsense judgment that a claimant was "capable of performing at least medium work based on [her] own statement that she could perform heavy work well, as of the time her final job ended, as well as the absence of any indication from [a treating source's] objective findings on examination that her condition worsened after that time." Kenney, 2014 WL 3548986, at *5. The court noted that this commonsense judgment was bolstered by other evidence, including an agency examining consultant's relatively benign findings on examination and evidence of the performance of activities inconsistent with the claimant's allegations of disabling pain and functional limitation. See id.

In Dandreo, this court held that an administrative law judge made a permissible commonsense judgment that a claimant could not perform repetitive fine manipulation by crediting the plaintiff's own testimony at hearing that she had such a limitation. See Dandreo, 2010 WL 2076090, at *5-*6.

The commissioner argues that in this case, as in Kenney and Dandreo, the administrative law judge made a commonsense judgment premised on the plaintiff's own statements, including his testimony that:

1. His most recent job as an airplane cleaner ended in 2007 when the company left the area, and he attributed the social anxiety he suffered on that job to an abrasive supervisor. See Opposition at 5. He continued to look for work afterward and attributed his failure to secure a new job to the economy. See id. Even prior to obtaining his airplane cleaner job, he had ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.