United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Northern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
P.
BRADLEY MURRAY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE..
Plaintiff
Julie Anne Wait brings this action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3), seeking judicial review
of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
(“the Commissioner”) denying her claims for
Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and
Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”), based on
disability. The parties have consented to the exercise of
jurisdiction by the Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c), for all proceedings in this Court. (Doc. 17
(“In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 636(c)
and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73, the parties in this case consent to have
a United States Magistrate Judge conduct any and all
proceedings in this case, … order the entry of a final
judgment, and conduct all post-judgment
proceedings.”)). See Doc. 19. Upon
consideration of the administrative record, Wait’s
brief, and the Commissioner’s brief, [2] it is determined
that the Commissioner’s decision denying benefits
should be reversed and remanded under sentence four of §
405(g).[3]
I.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On or
about September 4, 2013, Wait applied for DIB, under Title II
of the Social Security Act, and for SSI, based on disability,
under Title XVI of the Social Security Act (“the
Act”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381-1383d, alleging
disability beginning on January 30, 2007. (Tr. 394-407). Her
applications were denied at the initial level of
administrative review on October 4, 2013. (Tr. 243-47,
249-52). On October 18, 2013, Wait requested a hearing by an
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). (Tr. 309-10). After a hearing
was held on December 3, 2014 (Tr. 159-80), the ALJ issued an
unfavorable decision finding that Wait was not under a
disability from the alleged onset date of her disability
through the date of the decision, February 27, 2015. (Tr.
214-28). Wait appealed the ALJ’s decision to the
Appeals Council, which granted the request for review,
vacated the decision, and remanded her case to the ALJ for
further proceedings on June 7, 2016. (Tr. 234-37). The ALJ
conducted a second hearing on December 8, 2016. (Tr. 137-58).
The ALJ again issued an unfavorable decision finding that
Wait was not under a disability from the alleged onset date
of her disability through the date of the decision, July 3,
2017. (Tr. 48-69). Wait appealed the ALJ’s decision to
the Appeals Council, which denied her request for review on
April 2, 2018. (Tr. 1-4).
After
exhausting her administrative remedies, Wait sought judicial
review in this Court, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§
405(g) and 1383(c). (Doc. 1). The Commissioner filed an
answer and the social security transcript on August 17, 2018.
(Docs. 8, 9). Both parties filed briefs setting forth their
respective positions. (Docs. 12, 15). The case is now ripe
for decision.
II.
CLAIMS ON APPEAL
Wait
alleges that the ALJ’s decision to deny her benefits is
in error for the following reasons:
1. The ALJ erred in rejecting the opinion of treating
physician Dr. Bruce Bode who opined that, due to her diabetes
mellitus, she was not able to perform even sedentary work on
an ongoing basis;
2. The ALJ erred in weighing the opinions of the treating
psychiatrists David W. Hodo, M.D., David Hall, D.O., Barry
Scanlon, M.D. and Atlanta Psychiatry Associates; and
3. The ALJ’s erred by conducting a flawed credibility
examination by relying on the check-boxes rather than the
narrative description of her functioning and testimony at two
hearings.
(Doc. 12 at pp. 1-2).
III.
BACKGROUND FACTS
Wait
was born on January 19, 1967 and was 46 years old at the time
she filed her claim for benefits. (Tr. 394, 401). Wait
initially alleged disability due to Type 1 Diabetes, anxiety,
depression, spotting in eyes, teeth problems, and memory
loss. (Tr. 469). Wait completed college, earning a BA in fine
arts and a BA in journalism. (Tr. 142). She has worked in the
past as a reporter/journalist and
storyteller/children’s librarian, but she has not
worked since her alleged onset date. (Id.). She
indicated that she generally engages in normal daily
activities; such as, personal care, caring for her two
elementary age sons, driving her sons to and from school,
light housework, laundry, mowing, shopping, paying bills,
reading, and painting, but she alleges there are periods when
she is not able to perform these activities. (Tr. 141, 479,
481-83). She reported having infrequent social interactions
due to feeling panicked and claustrophobic and having trouble
with her memory, completing tasks, concentration, and
understanding. (Tr. 483-84). Wait alleged that she is unable
to work due to problems associated with her diabetes and
because of chronic anxiety and depression. (Tr. 144-47).
IV.
ALJ’S DECISION
After
conducting a hearing on this matter, the ALJ made a
determination that Wait had not been under a disability
during the relevant time period, and thus, was not entitled
to benefits. (Tr. 51-69). The ALJ findings set forth in her
July 3, 2017 decision that are relevant to the claims on
appeal are set forth below.
V.
DISCUSSION
Eligibility
for DIB and SSI benefits requires that the claimant be
disabled. 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(a)(1)(E),
1382(a)(1)-(2). A claimant is disabled if the claimant is
unable “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), 1382c(a)(3)(A). The impairment must be severe,
making the claimant unable to do the claimant’s
previous work or any other substantial gainful activity that
exists in the national economy. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2);
20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1505-11. ...