United States District Court, D. New Hampshire
Mark A. Giandomenico
v.
U.S. Social Security Administration, Acting Commissioner
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Paul
Barbadoro, United States District Judge.
Mark
Giandomenico challenges the Social Security
Administration's denial of his claim for Supplemental
Security Income (“SSI”) benefits, pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 405(g). He contends that the Administrative Law
Judge (“ALJ”) erred in assessing his residual
functional capacity (“RFC”) by improperly relying
upon the opinion of a consultative physician who allegedly
relied on an outdated medical record. The Acting
Commissioner, in turn, moves for an order affirming the
ALJ's decision. For the reasons that follow, I grant
Giandomenico's motion to reverse and remand the
Commissioner's decision.
I.
BACKGROUND
Giandomenico
is a 48 year-old man who has worked as a bell ringer for the
Salvation Army, a concession-stand clerk, and a cook. See
Administrative Transcript (hereinafter “Tr.”)
213, 229 (Doc. No. 4). He applied for SSI in October
2013, alleging disability as of July 23, 2012, due to heart
disease, stroke, asthma, and high blood pressure, among other
ailments. See Tr. 12, 211.[1] At the forefront of Giandomenico's
claim, symptomatically speaking, are his severe breathing
difficulties and the residual effects of an October 2013
stroke, which caused numbness, a tingling sensation, and
diminished strength in the right side of his body. See Tr.
34-35. Furthermore, beginning as late as March 2015 and
occurring as recently as July 2015, Giandomencio has
experienced presynocopal episodes, or fainting spells. See
Tr. 623, 785. The cause of these episodes has not been
determined, although altered blood flow of the cerebral and
extracranial vessels, or stenosis of the prostatic aortic
valve have both been suspected. See Tr. 779, 785, 794.
Giandomenico
now appeals from a September 21, 2016 decision of the SSA
Appeals Council denying his request to review the ALJ's
determination that he was “not disabled.” See Tr.
20.
II.
THE ALJ'S DECISION
The
ALJ's conclusion followed from his application of the
five-step, sequential analysis required by 20 C.F.R. §
416.920(a). See Tr. 12-21. At step one, the ALJ found that
Giandomenico had not worked since October 1, 2013, the date
of his application. See Tr. 14. At step two, the ALJ found
that Giandomenico had severe impairments of obesity, asthma,
sleep apnea, hypertension, status post cardiovascular
accident with residual right-sided weakness, status post
aortic valve replacement, and psoriasis. Id. The ALJ
further found that Giandomenico's only
medically-determinable mental impairments, depression and
memory impairment, were nonsevere. See Tr. 14-15. At step
three, the ALJ found that none of Giandomenico's
impairments, individually nor in combination, qualified for
any impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P,
Appendix 1. Id.; see 20 C.F.R. §§
416.920(d), 416.925-26. Specifically, the ALJ considered
Giandomenico's pulmonary and cardiac impairments under
the pertinent listings, along with the potential contributive
effects of obesity to those impairments, but concluded that
the evidence of record did not demonstrate the requisite
severity under either listing. See Tr. 16.
At step
four, the ALJ determined that Giandomenico had the RFC to
perform light exertional work, as defined in 20 C.F.R. §
416.967(b), with several postural, manipulative, and
environmental limitations.[2] See Tr. 16-19. In so doing, the ALJ
found that although there was a reasonable nexus between
Giandomenico's impairments and his alleged symptoms, his
statements regarding the “intensity, persistence and
limiting effects” of those symptoms were not
“entirely credible.” Tr. 17-18. Moreover, the ALJ
found that “the nature, duration and frequency of
[Giandomenico's] pain resulted in only a minimal actual
functional limitation based on his own description of his
daily activities and the treatment notes of examining
physicians.” Tr. 19. Although, the ALJ determined that
Giandomenico was unable to perform his past relevant work, he
concluded that Giandomenico “can perform a wide range
of light exertional work activities despite his physical
impairments.” Tr. 19.
In
reaching his conclusion, the ALJ essentially adopted the
findings of Burton Nault, M.D, a physician employed by the
State Disability Determination Services (“DDS”),
who reviewed Giandomenico's medical records as of
February 6, 2014 and offered an opinion regarding his RFC.
Id. The ALJ reasoned that nothing had been admitted
into the record indicating that Giandomenico's condition
had worsened from the time of Dr. Nault's review, and no
treating source had opined that Giandomenico had incurred
additional limitations as of that time. Id.
Finally,
at step five, the ALJ determined that despite his
limitations, Giandomenico could work in a significant number
of “light exertional” jobs available in both the
regional and national economy.[3] Consequently, the ALJ found that
Giandomenico was “not disabled” under the
appropriate framework, and denied his claim for SSI. Tr.
20-21.
III.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
I am
authorized to review the pleadings submitted by the parties
and the administrative record and enter a judgment affirming,
modifying, or reversing the “final decision” of
the Commissioner. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). That review is
limited, however, “to determining whether the ALJ used
the proper legal standards and found facts [based] upon the
proper quantum of evidence.” Ward v. Comm'r of
Soc. Sec., 211 F.3d 652, 655 (1st Cir. 2000). I defer to
the ALJ's findings of fact, so long as those findings are
supported by substantial evidence. Id.
Substantial
evidence exists “if a reasonable mind, reviewing the
evidence in the record as a whole, could accept it as
adequate to support his conclusion.” Irlanda Ortiz
v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 955 F.2d 765,
769 (1st Cir. 1991) (per curiam) (quoting Rodriguez v.
Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 647 F.2d 218,
222 (1st Cir. 1981)).
If the
ALJ's factual findings are supported by substantial
evidence, they are conclusive, even where the record
“arguably could support a different conclusion.”
Id. at 770. If, however, the ALJ derived her
findings by “ignoring evidence, misapplying the law, or
judging matters entrusted to experts, ” they are not
conclusive. Nguyen v. Chater,172 F.3d 31, 35 (1st
Cir. 1999) (per curiam). The ALJ is responsible for
determining issues of credibility and for drawing inferences
from ...