Walls v. Social Security Administration

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
LINDA K. WALLS, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
) 	Case No. CIV-21-143-KEW
)
COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL 	)
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff 	Linda 	K. 	Walls 	(the 	“Claimant”) 	requests 	judicial
review of the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration 	(the 	“Commissioner”) 	denying 	her 	application 	for
disability 	benefits 	under 	the 	Social 	Security 	Act. 	The 	Claimant
appeals 	the 	Commissioner’s 	decision, 	asserting 	that 	the
Administrative 	Law 	Judge 	(“ALJ”) 	incorrectly 	determined 	she 	was
not 	disabled. 	For 	the 	reasons 	discussed 	below, 	it 	is 	the 	finding
of 	this 	Court 	that 	the 	Commissioner’s 	decision 	should 	be 	and 	is
REVERSED and the case REMANDED to the ALJ for further proceedings.
Claimant’s Background
The Claimant was fifty-nine (59) years old at the time of the
ALJ’s 	decision. 	She 	has 	her 	G.E.D. 	and 	has 	worked 	in 	the 	past 	as
a phlebotomist, certified nurse aide, and job coach. The Claimant
alleges that her inability to work began on December 31, 2018. She
originally claimed that this inability to work stemmed from lupus
and arthritis.
6:21-cv-00143-DES Document 22 Filed in ED/OK on 03/17/23 Page 1 of 8

2
Procedural History
On 	January 	1, 	2019, 	the 	Claimant 	applied 	for 	disability
insurance 	benefits 	under 	Title 	II 	(42 	U.S.C. 	§ 	401, 	et 	seq.) 	of
the 	Social 	Security 	Act 	and 	for 	supplemental 	security 	income
benefits under Title XVI (42 U.S.C. § 1381, et seq.) of the Social
Security 	Act. 	The 	Claimant’s 	applications 	were 	initially 	denied
and 	were 	denied 	on 	reconsideration. 	The 	Claimant 	filed 	a 	request
for 	a 	hearing, 	which 	was 	held 	on 	June 	24, 	2020. 	The 	hearing 	was
held 	telephonically 	due 	to 	COVID-19 	and 	was 	before 	ALJ 	Jennie 	L.
McLean. 	On 	August 	4, 	2020, 	ALJ 	McLean 	entered 	an 	unfavorable
decision. The Claimant requested review by the Appeals Council and
the Council denied such request on December 21, 2020. As a result,
the 	decision 	of 	the 	ALJ 	represents 	the 	Commissioner’s 	final
decision 	for 	purposes 	of 	further 	appeal. 	20 	C.F.R. 	§§ 	404.981,
416.1481.
Decision of the Administrative Law Judge
The 	ALJ 	followed 	the 	five-step 	sequential 	process 	that 	the
social 	security 	regulations 	use 	to 	evaluate 	a 	disability 	claim.
See 	20 	C.F.R. 	§§ 	404.1520, 	416.920. 1 	At 	step 	two, 	the 	ALJ 	found
1 Step 	one 	requires 	the 	claimant 	to 	establish 	that 	he 	is 	not 	engaged 	in
substantial 	gainful 	activity, 	as 	defined 	by 	20 	C.F.R. 	§§ 	404.1510, 	416.910.
Step two requires that the claimant establish that he has a medically severe
impairment or combination of impairments that significantly limit his ability
to do basic work activities. 	20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1521, 416.921. If the claimant
is 	engaged 	in 	substantial gainful 	activity 	(step 	one) 	or 	if 	the 	claimant’s
impairment is not medically severe (step two), disability benefits are denied.
At step three, the claimant’s impairment is compared with certain impairments
listed 	in 20 	C.F.R. 	Pt. 	404, 	Subpt. 	P, 	App. 	1. 	A 	claimant 	suffering 	from 	a
listed impairment or impairments “medically equivalent” to a listed impairment
6:21-cv-00143-DES Document 22 Filed in ED/OK on 03/17/23 Page 2 of 8

3
that the Claimant had the following severe impairments: psoriatic
arthritis, 	systemic 	lupus, 	and 	diabetes. 	(Tr. 	13). 	She 	also
determined 	that 	the 	Claimant 	had 	a 	mild 	mental 	limitation,
specifically 	adjustment 	disorder 	with 	depressed 	mood. 	(Tr. 	13).
At step four, the ALJ determined that the Claimant had the residual
functional capacity (“RFC”) “to perform sedentary work as defined
in 	20 	CFR 	404.1567(a) 	and 	416.967(a) 	except 	she 	can 	never 	climb
ladders, 	ropes, 	and 	scaffolds, 	but 	can 	occasionally 	climb 	stairs
and ramps, as well as occasionally balance, kneel, crouch, crawl,
and stoop.” (Tr. 16).
The 	ALJ 	then 	concluded 	that 	this 	RFC 	would 	not 	allow 	the
Claimant 	to 	return 	to 	her 	past 	relevant 	work. 	(Tr. 	21). 	The 	ALJ
then proceeded to step five and found that considering claimant's
age, education, work experience, and RFC, there are jobs that exist
in 	significant 	numbers 	in 	the 	national 	economy 	that 	the 	Claimant
can 	perform. 	(Tr. 	21). 	Thus, 	the 	ALJ 	found 	that 	the 	Claimant 	had
not 	been 	under 	a 	disability 	from 	December 	31, 	2018, 	through 	the
date of the decision. (Tr. 22-23).
is determined to be disabled without further inquiry. If not, the evaluation
proceeds to step four, where claimant must establish that he does not retain the
residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform his past relevant work. If the
claimant’s step four burden is met, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to
establish at step five that work exists in significant numbers in the national
economy 	which 	the 	claimant 	– 	taking 	into 	account 	his 	age, 	education, 	work
experience, 	and 	RFC 	– 	can 	perform. 	Disability 	benefits 	are 	denied 	if 	the
Commissioner shows that the impairment which precluded the performance of past
relevant work does not preclude alternative work. See generally, Williams v.
Bowen, 844 F.2d 748, 750-51 (10th Cir. 1988).
6:21-cv-00143-DES Document 22 Filed in ED/OK on 03/17/23 Page 3 of 8

4
Errors Alleged for Review
The Claimant asserts that the ALJ erred in two ways. She first
contends 	that 	the 	ALJ’s 	determination 	that 	the 	Claimant’s 	skills
would 	transfer 	to 	other 	jobs 	with 	little 	to 	no 	vocational
adjustment 	was 	not 	supported 	by 	substantial 	evidence. 	She 	next
contends 	that 	the 	ALJ 	failed 	to 	consider 	the 	Claimant’s 	mental
impairments when she determined her RFC.
Social Security Law and Standard of Review
The 	Social 	Security 	Act 	defines 	“disability” 	as 	the
“inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason
of 	any 	medically 	determinable 	physical 	or 	mental 	impairment. . .”
42 	U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). 	A 	claimant 	is 	disabled 	under 	the Social
Security 	Act 	“only 	if 	his 	physical 	or 	mental 	impairments 	are 	of
such 	severity 	that 	he 	is 	not 	only 	unable 	to 	do 	his 	previous 	work
but 	cannot, 	considering 	his 	age, 	education, 	and 	work 	experience,
engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work 	which 	exists
in 	the 	national 	economy. 	. 	.” 42 	U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A).
Judicial review of the Commissioner’s final determination is
limited 	to 	two 	inquiries: 	first, 	whether 	the 	correct 	legal
standards 	were 	applied; 	and 	second, 	whether 	the 	decision 	was
supported by substantial evidence. Noreja v. Comm’r, SSA,952 F.3d.
1172, 1177 (10th Cir. 2020). Substantial evidence is “more than a
scintilla, but less than a preponderance.” Lax v. Astrue, 489 F.3d
1080, 	1084 	(10th 	Cir. 	2007). 	“It 	means 	— 	and 	means 	only 	— 	‘such
6:21-cv-00143-DES Document 22 Filed in ED/OK on 03/17/23 Page 4 of 8

5
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion.’” Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S.Ct. 1148, 1154
(2019) (quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229
(1938)). 	The 	court 	may 	not 	re-weigh 	the 	evidence 	nor 	substitute
its 	discretion 	for 	that 	of 	the 	agency. 	Casias 	v. 	Sec’y 	of 	Health
& Human Servs., 933 F.2d 799, 800 (10th Cir. 1991). Nevertheless,
the 	court 	must 	review 	the 	record 	as 	a 	whole, 	and 	the
“substantiality of the evidence must take into account whatever in
the record fairly detracts from its weight.” Universal Camera Corp.
v. 	NLRB, 	340 	U.S. 	474, 	488 	(1951); 	see 	also, 	Casias, 	933 	F.2d 	at
800-01. 	The 	Commissioner’s 	decision 	will 	stand, 	even 	if 	a 	court
might 	have 	reached 	a 	different 	conclusion, 	as 	long 	as 	it 	is
supported 	by 	substantial 	evidence. 	White 	v. 	Barnhart, 	287 	F.3d
903, 908 (10th Cir. 2002).
Inclusion of Mental Impairments in the RFC Analysis
The Claimant asserts that the ALJ failed to conduct a proper
analysis of the Claimant’s mental limitations when she determined
the 	Claimant’s 	RFC. 	For 	the 	reasons 	outlined 	below, 	the 	Court
agrees with the Claimant that the ALJ did fail to properly address
the 	impacts 	of 	the 	Claimant’s 	mental 	impairment 	at 	step 	four.
Therefore, the decision of the ALJ must be reversed.
When 	assessing 	a 	Claimant’s 	RFC, 	“the 	ALJ 	must 	consider 	the
combined effect of all medically determinable impairments, whether
severe 	or 	not.” 	Wells 	v. 	Colvin, 	727 	F.3d 	1061, 	1071 	(10th 	Cir.
6:21-cv-00143-DES Document 22 Filed in ED/OK on 03/17/23 Page 5 of 8

6
2013). In Wells, the Tenth Circuit held that the “conclusion that
the claimant’s mental impairments are non-severe at step two does
not 	permit 	the 	ALJ 	simply 	to 	disregard 	those 	impairments 	when
assessing 	a 	claimant’s 	RFC 	and 	making 	conclusions 	at 	steps 	four
and 	five.” 	Id. 	at 	1068-69. 	When 	assessing 	RFC, 	“the 	ALJ 	must
consider 	the 	combined 	effect 	of 	all 	medically 	determinable
impairments, whether severe or not.” Id. at 1069. “[T]o the extent
the ALJ relied on his finding of non-severity as a substitute for
adequate 	RFC 	analysis, 	the 	Commissioner’s 	regulations 	demand 	a
more 	thorough 	analysis.” 	Id. 	at 	1071. 	The 	Tenth 	Circuit 	is 	clear
— an ALJ’s failure to consider all impairments in the RFC analysis
is a reversible error. Salazar v. Barnhart, 468 F.3d 615, 621 (10th
Cir. 2006) (emphasis added) (citing Langley v. Barnhart, 373 F.3d
1116, 1123-4 (10th Cir. 2004).
In 	this 	case 	the 	ALJ 	failed 	to 	discuss 	the 	Claimant’s 	non-
severe 	mental 	impairment 	when 	she 	determined 	her 	RFC. 	The 	ALJ’s
only statements at step four that discussed the Claimant’s mental
impairment was when she stated that the administrative findings of
the state psychologists were persuasive. (Tr. 20). The ALJ failed
to provide any details or findings related to why the Claimant did
not 	need 	any 	limitations 	based 	on 	her 	adjustment 	disorder 	with
depressed 	mood. 	(Tr. 	16-20). 	Instead, 	her 	determination 	and 	lack
of limitations seems to rely on the fact that she found this mental
impairment mild at step two. (Tr. 13-15). This is exactly the type
6:21-cv-00143-DES Document 22 Filed in ED/OK on 03/17/23 Page 6 of 8

7
of conflation of the step two analysis and step four analysis which
the 	Tenth 	Circuit 	warned 	against 	in 	Wells. 	Her 	discussion 	of 	the
mental 	limitations 	is 	simply 	not 	enough 	to 	determine 	if 	the 	ALJ
considered 	the 	effects 	of 	the 	Claimant’s 	mental 	impairment 	when
she determined the RFC.
The 	Commissioner 	argues 	that 	the 	ALJ 	did 	consider 	the
Claimant’s mental impairments at step four when she considered the
persuasiveness 	of 	the 	medical 	findings 	of 	the 	state 	agency
psychologists. 	(Tr. 	20). 	While 	the 	ALJ 	did 	discuss 	the
persuasiveness of the state agency psychologists’ opinion, that is
not enough to show she considered the mental impairment. In fact,
the fact that her only discussion of the mental impairment at step
four 	was 	her 	statement 	that 	the 	psychologist 	found 	the 	mental
impairment non-severe merely further speaks to the ALJ’s reliance
on a non-severe finding as a substitute for a proper RFC analysis.
This 	directly 	contradicts 	the 	step-four 	requirements. 	Wells, 	727
F.3d at 1071.
Because the ALJ failed to properly account for the Claimant's
mental 	impairments 	when 	she 	determined 	the 	Claimant’s 	RFC, 	the
undersigned 	Magistrate 	Judge 	concludes 	that 	the 	decision 	of 	the
Commissioner should be reversed, and the case remanded. On remand,
the ALJ should consider all the Claimant’s impairments, and fully
explain 	why 	certain 	impairments 	do 	not 	result 	in 	limitations 	in
the 	RFC. 	If 	such 	analysis 	results 	in 	any 	modification 	of 	the
6:21-cv-00143-DES Document 22 Filed in ED/OK on 03/17/23 Page 7 of 8

8
Claimant's RFC, the ALJ should then redetermine what work, if any,
the Claimant can perform and ultimately whether she is disabled.
At this time the Court declines to address whether the ALJ’s
reliance on the vocational expert’s (“VE”) testimony was improper,
as 	the 	RFC 	and 	hypotheticals 	posed 	to 	the 	VE 	may 	change 	when 	the
mental 	limitations 	are 	properly 	assessed. 	While 	the 	Court 	does
decline to rule on this issue, it urges the ALJ to ensure that she
includes 	all 	relevant 	information 	when 	posing 	hypothetical
questions 	to 	the 	VE 	as 	to 	the 	transferability 	of 	the 	Claimant’s
skills.
Conclusion
The 	decision 	of 	the 	Commissioner 	is 	not 	supported 	by
substantial 	evidence 	and 	the 	correct 	legal 	standards 	were 	not
applied. 	Therefore, 	this 	Court, 	in 	accordance 	with 	the 	fourth
sentence 	of 	42 	U.S.C. 	405(g), 	the 	ruling 	of 	the 	Commissioner 	of
the 	Social 	Security 	Administration 	should 	be 	and 	is 	REVERSED 	and
the 	case 	is 	REMANDED 	for 	further 	proceedings 	consistent 	with 	the
Opinion and Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 17th Day of March, 2023.
KIMBERLY E. WEST
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6:21-cv-00143-DES Document 22 Filed in ED/OK on 03/17/23 Page 8 of 8