United States District Court, D. Maine
JOHN H. RICH, III, Magistrate Judge.
In this Social Security Disability ("SSD") and Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") appeal, the plaintiff contends that the administrative law judge improperly interpreted raw medical evidence and wrongly analyzed the opinion of a treating source. I affirm the commissioner's decision.
In accordance with 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 for purposes of SSD only through June 30, 2010, Finding 1, Record at 19; that she suffered from bipolar disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, history of lumbar disc surgery, history of right arm fracture, and right ankle fracture, impairments that were severe, but which, considered separately or in combination, did not meet or medically equal the criteria of any impairment listed in Appendix 1 to 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P (the "Listings"), Findings 3-4, id. at 20; that she had the residual functional capacity ("RFC") to perform light work, except that she could occasionally climb stairs, must avoid ladders and working at heights, must avoid operating dangerous machinery, and could perform simple, routine jobs that did not involve public contact or more than occasional contact with coworkers, Finding 5, id. at 22; that she was unable to perform her past relevant work, Finding 6, id. at 26; that, given her age (32 on the amended alleged date of onset of disability, December 31, 2006), at least high school education, work experience, and RFC, and using the Medical-Vocational Rules in Appendix 2 to 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P (the "Grid") as a framework for decision-making, there were jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy that she could perform, Findings 7-10, id.; and that, therefore, she had not been under a disability, as that term is defined in the Social Security Act, at any time from the alleged date of onset through the date of the decision, June 11, 2013, Finding 11, id. at 28. The Appeals Council declined to review the decision, id. at 1-3, making it 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 5 of the sequential evaluation process, at which stage the burden of proof shifts to the commissioner to show that a claimant can perform work other than her past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g), 416.920(g); Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 n.5 (1987); Goodermote, 690 F.2d at 7. The record must contain substantial evidence in support of the commissioner's findings regarding the plaintiff's RFC to perform such other work. Rosado v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 807 F.2d 292, 294 (1st Cir. 1986).
A. Medical Evidence
The plaintiff contends that an incorrect statement and an incoherent statement in the administrative law judge's opinion each entitle her to remand, because they demonstrate that the administrative law judge "impermissibly interpreted raw medical evidence" and lacked evidentiary support for the RFC that he assigned to the plaintiff. Itemized Statement of Errors Pursuant to Local Rule 16.3 Submitted by Plaintiff ("Itemized Statement") (ECF No. 9) at 2-3.
I agree with the plaintiff, id. at 2, that the administrative law judge mischaracterized the report of Benjamin Weinberg, M.D., a physician consultant, when he wrote the following:
Dr. Weinberg's opinion that she can sustain light work, with postural limitations, is supported by her work after her back and right arm surgeries. Dr. Weinberg's opinion is given extra weight pursuant to Ruling 96-6p.
Record at 25. It is not correct to say, as the defendant does here, that "[t]he ALJ was correct in stating that Dr. Weinberg's opinion indicated that she can sustain light work, with postural limitations[, ]" citing the Record at 25, 100, Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Statement of Errors ("Opposition") (ECF No. 10) at 5, when, in fact, Dr. Weinberg only said that there were no physical limitations.
The defendant's subsequent argument is more worthy of attention; she contends that the physical RFC fashioned by the administrative law judge was more favorable to the plaintiff than the medical evidence would support, and, therefore, the plaintiff cannot establish that the alleged error was other than harmless. Id. at 5-6. That would ordinarily be the case, see, e.g., Henderson v. Colvin, No. 2:13-cv-426-JHR, 2015 WL 46075 at *3 (D. Me. Jan. 2, 2015); Soto v. Colvin, No. 2:14-cv-28-JHR, 2015 WL 58401 at *3 (D. Me. Jan. 5, 2015), even though the defendant cites only non-medical evidence, or the absence of evidence, to support the chosen RFC. Opposition at 4-5.
I am troubled by the administrative law judge's following statement, correctly characterized by the plaintiff, Itemized Statement at 3, as "puzzling" and "incoherent":
Dr. Sonti's report essentially gives reasonable credibility to the claimant's allegations that she is limited by pain in her back, ankle and right upper extremity, and cannot sustain work. That self-description does not match the chronology of her treatment and accidents-including her more recent ankle fracture. That allegation also does not match the Central Maine ...