Malone v. Berryhill

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          GRAY M. ORDEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         On August 17, 2015, Plaintiff Robert L. Malone applied for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, alleging a disability onset date of January 29, 2015. Plaintiff's application for benefits was denied at the initial administrative level on October 19, 2015. He then requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). The ALJ held a hearing on January 27, 2017. She denied Plaintiff's claim on June 27, 2017. Plaintiff requested a review of the ALJ's decision by the Appeals Council, which declined review on April 7, 2018. As a result, the ALJ's decision became the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the “Commissioner”) as of April 7, 2018.

         Plaintiff's case is now before the court for review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3). Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) and Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties have consented to the full jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge. Based on a careful review of the parties' submissions, the relevant law, and the record as a whole, the court concludes that the decision of the Commissioner is due to be AFFIRMED.

         I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         The court reviews a Social Security appeal to determine whether the Commissioner's decision “is supported by substantial evidence and based upon proper legal standards.” Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1439 (11th Cir. 1997). The court will reverse the Commissioner's decision if it is convinced that the decision was not supported by substantial evidence or that the proper legal standards were not applied. Carnes v. Sullivan, 936 F.2d 1215, 1218 (11th Cir. 1991). The court “may not decide the facts anew, reweigh the evidence, or substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner, ” but rather “must defer to the Commissioner's decision if it is supported by substantial evidence.” Miles v. Chater, 84 F.3d 1397, 1400 (11th Cir. 1997) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “Even if the evidence preponderates against the Secretary's factual findings, [the court] must affirm if the decision reached is supported by substantial evidence.” Martin v. Sullivan, 894 F.2d 1520, 1529 (11th Cir. 1990). Moreover, reversal is not warranted even if the court itself would have reached a result contrary to that of the factfinder.” See Edwards v. Sullivan, 937 F.2d 580, 584 n.3 (11th Cir. 1991).

         The substantial evidence standard is met “if a reasonable person would accept the evidence in the record as adequate to support the challenged conclusion.” Boyd v. Heckler, 704 F.2d 1207, 1209 (11th Cir. 1983). The requisite showing has been described as “more than a scintilla, but less than a preponderance.” Bloodsworth v. Heckler, 703 F.2d 1233, 1239 (11th Cir. 1983). The court must scrutinize the entire record to determine the reasonableness of the decision reached and cannot “act as [an] automaton[] in reviewing the [Commissioner's] decision.” Hale v. Bowen, 831 F.2d 1007, 1010 (11th Cir. 1987). Thus, the court must consider evidence both favorable and unfavorable to the Commissioner's decision. Swindle v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 222, 225 (11th Cir. 1990).

         The court will reverse the Commissioner's decision on plenary review if the decision applies incorrect law or fails to provide the court with sufficient reasoning to determine that the Commissioner properly applied the law. Id. (citing Keeton v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 21 F.3d 1064, 1066 (11th Cir. 1994)). There is no presumption that the Commissioner's conclusions of law are valid. Id.

         II. STATUTORY AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

         To qualify for disability benefits, a claimant must show the “inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment 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 months.” 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A) & 416(i). A physical or mental impairment is “an impairment that results from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities which are demonstrated by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(3). Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that he is disabled, and is responsible for producing evidence sufficient to support his claim. See Ellison v. Barnhart, 355 F.3d 1272, 1276 (11th Cir. 2003).

         A determination of disability under the Social Security Act requires a five-step analysis. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a). The Commissioner must determine in sequence:

(1) Is the claimant presently unable to engage in substantial gainful activity?

(2) Are the claimant's impairments severe?

(3) Do the claimant's impairments satisfy or medically equal one of the specific impairments set forth in 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1?

(4) Is the claimant unable to perform his former occupation?

(5) Is the claimant unable to perform other work given his residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience?

See Frame v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 596 Fed.Appx. 908, 910 (11th Cir. 2015); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i-v). “An affirmative answer to any of the above questions leads either to the next question, or, [at] steps three and five, to a finding of disability. A negative answer to any question, other than at step three, leads to a determination of ‘not disabled.'” McDaniel v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 1026, 1030 (11th Cir. 1986) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)-(f)). “Once the finding is made that a claimant cannot return to prior work the burden of proof shifts to the Secretary to show other work the claimant can do.” Foote v. Chater, 67 F.3d 1553, 1559 (11th Cir. 1995) (citing Gibson v. Heckler, 762 F.2d 1516 (11th Cir. 1985)).

         III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS

         Robert Malone was 46 years old at the time he filed his disability application and 48 years old at the time of the ALJ's decision. R. 31. He lives in a house with his girlfriend and their seven-year-old child in Alexander City, Alabama. R. 68. Plaintiff has a twelfth-grade education in addition to one year of college coursework. R. 69. He served one year in the United States Navy before being injured when “cargo fell on” him while onboard a Navy ship. R. 1200. Plaintiff was honorably discharged at the rank of E-3. R. 1200. He has a 90% Veterans Administration (“VA”) disability rating. R. 24 & 1291.

         Plaintiff's primary complaints are back injury, depression, and shoulder injury. R. 205. He has a documented medical history dating back to 1987.^[1] In the past, he has worked as a forklift operator, molding machine tender, bulldozer operator, wire harness assembler, lab tester, production assembler, and tractor trailer operator. R. 30 & 221-22. He has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since January 29, 2015. R. ...