Dawson v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          ANNEMARIE CARNEY AXON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDG

         Plaintiff Gary Dawson appeals the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying his claim for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits. Based on the court's review of the administrative record and the parties' briefs, the court WILL REVERSE the Commissioner's decision and WILL REMAND for further administrative proceedings.

         I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         On November 5, 2015, Mr. Dawson applied for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits, alleging that his disability began on October 9, 2015.^[1](R. 136). The Commissioner initially denied his application and he requested review by an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). (Id. at 66, 68, 73). After holding a hearing (id. at 37-52), the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision (id. at 15-30). On August 13, 2018, the Appeals Council denied Mr. Dawson's request for review of the unfavorable decision. (R. at 1). The Commissioner's decision is now final and ripe for judicial review. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

         II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         The court's role in reviewing claims brought under the Social Security Act is a narrow one. The court “must determine whether the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence and based on proper legal standards.” Winschel v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1178 (11th Cir. 2011) (quotation marks omitted). “Where the ALJ denies benefits and the Appeals Council denies review, [this court] review[s] the ALJ's decision as the Commissioner's final decision.” Henry v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 802 F.3d 1264, 1267 (11th Cir. 2015) (quotation marks and alteration omitted).

         “Under the substantial evidence standard, this court will affirm the ALJ's decision if there exists ‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion.'” Henry, 802 F.3d at 1267 (quoting Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1178). The court may not “decide the facts anew, reweigh the evidence, ” or substitute its judgment for that of the ALJ. Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1178 (quotation marks omitted). The court must affirm “[e]ven if the evidence preponderates against the Commissioner's findings.” Crawford v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1158-59 (11th Cir.2004) (quotation marks omitted).

         Despite the deferential standard for review of claims, the court must “scrutinize the record as a whole to determine if the decision reached is reasonable and supported by substantial evidence.” Henry, 802 F.3d at 1267 (quoting MacGregor v. Bowen, 786 F.2d 1050, 1053 (11th Cir. 1986)). The court must reverse the Commissioner's decision if the ALJ does not apply the correct legal standards. Cornelius v. Sullivan, 936 F.2d 1143, 1145-46 (11th Cir. 1991).

         III. ALJ'S DECISION

         To determine whether an individual is disabled, an ALJ follows a five-step sequential evaluation process. The ALJ considers:

(1) whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments; (3) whether the impairment meets or equals the severity of the specified impairments in the Listing of Impairments; (4) based on a residual functional capacity (“RFC”) assessment, whether the claimant can perform any of his or her past relevant work despite the impairment; and (5) whether there are significant numbers of jobs in the national economy that the claimant can perform given the claimant's RFC, age, education, and work experience.

Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1178.

         Here, the ALJ determined that Mr. Dawson had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since his alleged disability onset date of October 9, 2015. (R. at 20). He found that Mr. Dawson had four severe impairments: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, osteoarthritis, degenerative disc disease, and obesity. (Id.). He also found that Mr. Dawson had several non-severe impairments, including pain in his hands, wrists, left elbow and left ankle, and chronic kidney disease. (Id. at 20- 21). The ALJ concluded that Mr. Dawson did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equalled the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. (Id. at 21-23).

         Next, the ALJ determined that Mr. Dawson had the residual functional capacity to perform a range of light work except that he faced some additional limitations, including an inability to climb ladders, rope, or scaffolds; an inability to perform around hazards or in concentrated exposure to extreme cold temperatures or high levels of humidity; a need for a cane to walk over rough, uneven, or slippery surfaces; and the ability to climb ramps or stairs only occasionally. (R. 23). Based on that residual functional capacity, the ALJ found that Mr. Dawson was unable to perform any past relevant work. (R. 28). However, relying on testimony from a vocational expert, the ALJ concluded that jobs existed in significant numbers in the national economy that Mr. Dawson could perform, including marker/labeler, packer, and assembler. (I ...