United States District Court, D. Maine
REPORT AND RECOMMENDED DECISION
John
C. Nivison U.S. Magistrate Judge.
On
Plaintiff Kathy R.'s application for supplemental
security income benefits under Title XVI of the Social
Security Act, Defendant, the Social Security Administration
Commissioner, found that Plaintiff has severe impairments,
but retains the functional capacity to perform substantial
gainful activity. Defendant, therefore, denied
Plaintiff's request for disability benefits. Plaintiff
filed this action to obtain judicial review of
Defendant's final administrative decision pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 405(g).
Following
a review of the record, and after consideration of the
parties' arguments, I recommend the Court affirm the
administrative decision.
The
Administrative Findings
The
Commissioner's final decision is the April 18, 2017
decision of the Administrative Law Judge. (ALJ Decision, ECF
No. 9-2.)[1] The ALJ's decision tracks the familiar
five-step sequential evaluation process for analyzing social
security disability claims, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520,
416.920.
The ALJ
found that Plaintiff has severe, but non-listing-level
impairments consisting of major depressive disorder,
personality disorder, and obesity. (ALJ Decision ¶¶
2, 3, R. 24-25.) The ALJ concluded that Plaintiff retains the
residual functional capacity (RFC) for work at all exertional
levels, subject to “no more than occasional postural
adaptations” and the avoidance of hazardous or
challenging environments (heights, machinery, ladders, ropes,
scaffolds, loud noises, temperature extremes, and pulmonary
irritants). Additionally, Plaintiff's mental RFC permits
simple, routine, repetitive tasks involving no more than
incidental (no more than 1/6 of the workday) use of
independent judgment or discretion, or changes in work
processes. Finally, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff is
precluded from jobs requiring interaction with the public,
and also jobs involving more than incidental interaction with
coworkers. (Id. ¶ 4, R. 27.)
Given
the stated RFC, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff cannot
perform past relevant work as a cashier checker.
(Id. ¶ 5, R. 32.) Based on the RFC,
Plaintiff's age (38 as of the application date),
education (high school), and vocational expert testimony, the
ALJ found that Plaintiff can perform substantial gainful
activity consisting of other jobs existing in substantial
numbers in the national economy, including the representative
jobs of garment folder, hand packager, and
janitor.[2] (Id. ¶ 9, R. 32-33.) Because
the ALJ found that Plaintiff can transition to other
substantial gainful activity, the ALJ concluded that
Plaintiff was not under a disability for purposes of the
Social Security Act. (Id. ¶ 10, R. 33.)
Standard
of Review
A court
must affirm the administrative decision provided the decision
is based on the correct legal standards and is supported by
substantial evidence, even if the record contains evidence
capable of supporting an alternative outcome.
Manso-Pizarro v. Sec'y of HHS, 76 F.3d 15, 16
(1st Cir. 1996) (per curiam); Rodriguez Pagan v.
Sec'y of HHS, 819 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1987).
Substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a finding. Richardson v.
Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971); Rodriguez v.
Sec'y of HHS, 647 F.2d 218, 222 (1st Cir. 1981).
“The ALJ's findings of fact are conclusive when
supported by substantial evidence, but they are not
conclusive when derived by ignoring evidence, misapplying the
law, or judging matters entrusted to experts.”
Nguyen v. Chater, 172 F.3d 31, 35 (1st Cir. 1999).
Discussion
Plaintiff
argues the ALJ erred because he did not properly evaluate the
medical expert opinion evidence when assessing
Plaintiff's RFC. Plaintiff also contends the ALJ's
discussion of Plaintiff's subjective complaints is not
supported by substantial evidence because the ALJ did not
accurately characterize the evidence of record, and
unreasonably relied on Plaintiff's request for
unemployment benefits after her alleged onset date.
In his
discussion of Plaintiff's RFC, the ALJ discussed in some
detail Plaintiff's alleged disability, and addressed the
symptoms and the limits resulting from obesity (postural and
environmental limitations), and major depressive disorder and
personality disorder (simple work, adjustment, judgment and
social limitations). (R. 28-30.) Although Plaintiff reported
she suffers from significant anxiety, social discomfort, and
mood instability, which impacted her reliability as a cashier
at Walmart, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff's subjective
report considerably overstated the degree of limitation
Plaintiff actually experienced. The ALJ observed that
Plaintiff has good function regarding the activities of daily
living; she performed the typical activities required of
independent living and engaged in relatively demanding
family-oriented activity, including home schooling children,
participating in homeschool cooperative activities with
others, caring for her parents, and attending school, sport,
and church events. (R. 30.)
The ALJ
also considered expert opinion concerning Plaintiff's
ability to engage in vocational activity. The ALJ gave great
weight to the opinion of Donna Gates, Ph.D., who reported
that Plaintiff likely could relate adequately to others,
manage work stress, function independently on simple tasks,
and maintain personal appearance. (Ex. 6F; R. 30-31.) The ALJ
concluded that the opinion offered by Dr. Gates was more
reliable than that of provider Gayle Knee, LCSW, who opined
that Plaintiff would be unreliable and would not interact
with others without undue distraction. (Ex. 14F.) The ALJ
concluded that Ms. Knee's treatment records and
Plaintiff's daily activities did not support her
conclusion. (R. 31.) Finally, the ALJ determined that
Plaintiff's request for unemployment benefits after her
alleged onset date, while not dispositive, was at least
suggestive of Plaintiff's subjective belief that she
could engage in work activity. (R. 30.)
A.
...