United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION
Ray
Kent United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff
brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g),
seeking judicial review of a final decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security Administration (Commissioner)
which denied her claim for disability insurance benefits
(DIB) and supplemental security income (SSI).
Plaintiff
alleged a disability onset date of June 1, 2013. PageID.307.
Plaintiff identified her disabling conditions as depression,
anxiety, chronic edema, sleep apnea, high blood pressure
(HBP), chronic arthritis, and congested [sic] heart failure.
PageID.312. Prior to applying for DIB and SSI, plaintiff
completed the 12th grade and worked as a customer service
representative and sales clerk. PageID.92, 314. An
administrative law judge (ALJ) reviewed plaintiff’s
claim de novo and entered a written decision denying
benefits on July 26, 2017. PageID.79-94. This decision, which
was later approved by the Appeals Council, has become the
final decision of the Commissioner and is now before the
Court for review.
I.
LEGAL STANDARD
This
Court’s review of the Commissioner’s decision is
typically focused on determining whether the
Commissioner’s findings are supported by substantial
evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); McKnight v.
Sullivan, 927 F.2d 241 (6th Cir. 1990).
“Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla of
evidence but less than a preponderance; it is such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion.” Cutlip v. Secretary of
Health & Human Services, 25 F.3d 284, 286 (6th Cir.
1994). A determination of substantiality of the evidence must
be based upon the record taken as a whole. Young v.
Secretary of Health & Human Services, 925 F.2d 146
(6th Cir. 1990).
The
scope of this review is limited to an examination of the
record only. This Court does not review the evidence de novo,
make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence.
Brainard v. Secretary of Health & Human
Services, 889 F.2d 679, 681 (6th Cir. 1989). The fact
that the record also contains evidence which would have
supported a different conclusion does not undermine the
Commissioner’s decision so long as there is substantial
support for that decision in the record. Willbanks v.
Secretary of Health & Human Services, 847 F.2d 301,
303 (6th Cir. 1988). Even if the reviewing court would
resolve the dispute differently, the Commissioner’s
decision must stand if it is supported by substantial
evidence. Young, 925 F.2d at 147.
A
claimant must prove that he suffers from a disability in
order to be entitled to benefits. A disability is established
by showing that the claimant cannot engage in 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 twelve months.
See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1505 and 416.905;
Abbott v. Sullivan, 905 F.2d 918, 923 (6th Cir.
1990). In applying the above standard, the Commissioner has
developed a five-step analysis:
The Social Security Act requires the Secretary to follow a
“five-step sequential process” for claims of
disability. First, plaintiff must demonstrate that she is not
currently engaged in “substantial gainful
activity” at the time she seeks disability benefits.
Second, plaintiff must show that she suffers from a
“severe impairment” in order to warrant a finding
of disability. A “severe impairment” is one which
“significantly limits . . . physical or mental ability
to do basic work activities.” Third, if plaintiff is
not performing substantial gainful activity, has a severe
impairment that is expected to last for at least twelve
months, and the impairment meets a listed impairment,
plaintiff is presumed to be disabled regardless of age,
education or work experience. Fourth, if the plaintiff's
impairment does not prevent her from doing her past relevant
work, plaintiff is not disabled. For the fifth and final
step, even if the plaintiff’s impairment does prevent
her from doing her past relevant work, if other work exists
in the national economy that plaintiff can perform, plaintiff
is not disabled.
Heston v. Commissioner of Social Security, 245 F.3d
528, 534 (6th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted).
The
claimant bears the burden of proving the existence and
severity of limitations caused by her impairments and the
fact that she is precluded from performing her past relevant
work through step four. Jones v. Commissioner of Social
Security, 336 F.3d 469, 474 (6th Cir. 2003). However, at
step five of the inquiry, “the burden shifts to the
Commissioner to identify a significant number of jobs in the
economy that accommodate the claimant’s residual
functional capacity (determined at step four) and vocational
profile.” Id. If it is determined that a
claimant is or is not disabled at any point in the evaluation
process, further review is not necessary. Mullis v.
Bowen, 861 F.2d 991, 993 (6th Cir. 1988).
“The
federal court’s standard of review for SSI cases
mirrors the standard applied in social security disability
cases.” D’Angelo v. Commissioner of Social
Security, 475 F.Supp.2d 716, 719 (W.D. Mich. 2007).
“The proper inquiry in an application for SSI benefits
is whether the plaintiff was disabled on or after her
application date.” Casey v. Secretary of Health and
Human Services, 987 F.2d 1230, 1233 (6th Cir. 1993).
II.
ALJ’s DECISION
Plaintiff’s
claim failed at the fifth step. At the first step, the ALJ
found that plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since the alleged onset date of June 1, 2013, and
that she meets the insured status of the Social Security Act
through December 31, 2019. PageID.81. At the second step, the
ALJ found that plaintiff had severe impairments of: chronic
bilateral lower extremity edema; hypertension with chronic
diastolic heart failure; obstructive sleep apnea; obesity,
status post gastric sleeve bypass[1]; degenerative disc disease
of the cervical spine; osteoarthritis of bilateral knees with
plantar fasciitis; asthma; history of interstitial cystitis
with overactive bladder; major depressive disorder; and
generalized anxiety disorder. PageID.82. At the third ...