United States District Court, District of New Hampshire
Steven J. McAuliffe United States District Judge
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3), Claimant, Kristen McKinley, moves to reverse the Commissioner’s decision denying her application for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act (the “Act”) and Supplemental Security Income Benefits under Title XVI of the Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 423, 1381, et seq. See document no. 8. The Commissioner objects and moves for an order affirming his decision, document no. 11.
I. Procedural History
On August 26, 2010, claimant filed an application for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB benefits”), and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”), alleging disability beginning August 17, 2010. She asserts eligibility for benefits based on disabilities due to severe back, neck, arm, shoulder, leg, and hip pain; pain, numbness, and tingling in her lower and upper extremities; severe headaches and episodes of dizziness and light headedness; weakness; and anxiety, PTSD, ADHD, bipolar disorder, and major depression. Her application for benefits was denied and she requested an administrative hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”).
On February 8, 2012, claimant (who was then 38 years old), her attorney, and an impartial vocational expert appeared before an ALJ. On March 19, 2012, the ALJ issued his written decision, concluding that claimant was not disabled. The Appeals Council denied claimant’s request for review of the ALJ’s decision on December 3, 2012. Accordingly, the ALJ’s decision became the final decision of the Commissioner, subject to judicial review.
Claimant then filed a timely action in this court, appealing the denial of DIB and SSI benefits. Now pending are claimant’s “Motion for Order Reversing Decision of the Commissioner” (document no. 8) and the Commissioner’s “Motion for Order Affirming the Decision of the Commissioner” (document no. 11).
II. Stipulated Facts
Pursuant to Local Rule 9.1(d), the parties submitted a Joint Statement of Material Facts, which is part of the court record (document no. 12), and need not be recounted in detail in this opinion.
Standard of Review
I. Properly Supported Findings by the ALJ are Entitled to Deference.
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the court is empowered “to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing.” Factual findings of the Commissioner are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Irlanda Ortiz v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 955 F.2d 765, 769 (1st Cir. 1991). Moreover, provided the ALJ’s findings are supported by substantial evidence, the court must sustain those findings even when there may also be substantial evidence supporting the contrary position. See Tsarelka v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 842 F.2d 529, 535 (1st Cir. 1988) (“[W]e must uphold the [Commissioner’s] conclusion, even if the record arguably could justify a different conclusion, so long as it is supported by substantial evidence.”). See also Rodriguez v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 647 F.2d 218, 222 (1st Cir. 1981) (“We must uphold the [Commissioner’s] findings in this case if a reasonable mind, reviewing the evidence in the record as a whole, could accept it as adequate to support his conclusion.”).
In making factual findings, the Commissioner must weigh and resolve conflicts in the evidence. See Burgos Lopez v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 747 F.2d 37, 40 (1st Cir. 1984) (citing Sitar v. Schweiker, 671 F.2d 19, 22 (1st Cir. 1982)). It is “the responsibility of the [Commissioner] to determine issues of credibility and to draw inferences from the record evidence. Indeed, the resolution of conflicts in the evidence is for the [Commissioner], not the courts.” Irlanda Ortiz, 955 F.2d at 769 (citation omitted). Accordingly, the court will give deference to the ALJ’s credibility determinations, particularly when those determinations are supported by specific findings. See Frustaglia v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 829 F.2d 192, 195 (1st Cir. 1987) (citing Da Rosa v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 803 F.2d 24, 26 (1st Cir. 1986)).
II. The Parties’ Respective Burdens
An individual seeking Social Security disability benefits is disabled under the Act if he or she 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). The Act places a heavy initial burden on claimant to establish the existence of a disabling impairment. See Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146-47 (1987); Santiago v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 944 F.2d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 1991). To satisfy that burden, claimant must prove that her impairment prevents her from performing her former type of work. See Gray v. Heckler, 760 F.2d 369, 371 (1st Cir. 1985) (citing Goodermote v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 690 F.2d 5, 7 (1st Cir. 1982)). Nevertheless, claimant is not required to establish a doubt-free claim. The initial burden is satisfied by the usual civil standard: a “preponderance of the evidence.” See Paone v. Schweiker, 530 F.Supp. 808, 810-11 (D. Mass. 1982).
If claimant demonstrates an inability to perform her previous work, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show that there are other jobs in the national economy that she can perform. See Vazquez v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 683 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 1982). See also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1512(g). If the Commissioner shows the existence of other jobs that claimant can perform, then the overall burden to demonstrate disability remains with claimant. See Hernandez v. Weinberger, 493 F.2d 1120, 1123 (1st Cir. 1974); Benko v. Schweiker, 551 F.Supp. 698, 701 (D.N.H. 1982).
In assessing a disability claim, the Commissioner considers both objective and subjective factors, including: (1) objective medical facts; (2) claimant’s subjective claims of pain and disability, as supported by the testimony of claimant or other witnesses; and (3) claimant’s educational background, age, and work experience. See, e.g., Avery v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 797 F.2d 19, 23 (1st Cir. 1986); Goodermote, 690 F.2d at 6. When determining whether a claimant is disabled, the ALJ is also required to make the following five inquiries:
(1) whether claimant is engaged in substantial ...